Humanities desk
< July 19	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 20[edit]

Patron saints[edit]

How does a saint come to be regarded as the patron saint of anything? Patron saint doesn't say anything about it, and I don't know where else to look. I presume that it's different between the Eastern and Western Churches, but for all I know it could be by popular opinion in both cases. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the subject a particular saint is patron of has usually been extrapolated (sometimes strenously) from how that saint lived or died. For instance, Saint Barbara is the patron saint of miners, and the article says it is because of her association to lightning, which can be stretched to associate her with explosives. (BTW, I never knew the lightning connection until now.) I would think it is indeed just popular opinion, as you say. TomorrowTime (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Joseph of Cupertino is the patron saint of air travel because he could levitate. Sometimes though, it is just because of ancient tradition - like St. George is a patron saint of soldiers because he was a soldier, or of various countries (Georgia, England) which identified with him for whatever reason. That is basically how saints were always made in general, by popular tradition. In Catholicism a methodical process developed in the Middle Ages (and since JPII has been even more rigourous), while in Eastern Orthodox churches sainthood still occurs by popular acclamation (so Tsar Nicholas II could be a saint if enough people believe he is). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a vague memory of hearing that there's a patron saint of television repairmen. Assuming that there's not popular acclaim for a saint becoming the patron of such an occupation, how would this happen? Or is this a false story? This story says that there's a patron saint of television, declared so to be by Pope Pius XII; is this a very common means of a saint becoming a patron of something? I know that popular acclaim was common, although I didn't know that it was still common in the East; I've heard of the Tsar and his family being thought of as possible saints (as martyrs for the faith, among other things), although I thought it was a decision of the Patriarch and other high prelates. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in days of yore the patronhood came about naturally, from the people rather than the clergy, but recently patron saints of newer inventions have to be declared - there's just not as many people who would desire "little gods" for specific purposes, like there was in past times. For instance, there is a patron saint of the Internet, but I don't think many users of the Internet say a little prayer to protect them from trojans before clicking that link that just mighty be iffy. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, creating Isidore of Seville the patron saint of the internet was proposed, but not carried out. --Sean 15:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being God?[edit]

Are there any works of literature or philosophy which ask the question "what is it like to be God?" In particular are there any that have a pessimistic view of such an existence? Thank you, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not philosophy, and it's probably not literature, but Black & White is the closest that I can think of. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gods have it pretty rough.[1] 67.117.147.249 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to Be a God by Strugatskie brothers is exactly it. It is a masterpiece, but a pretty damn dark one; at least the Russian original is. I don't know what English translation is like. --Dr Dima (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my hazy memory, God in that title is pretty damn metaphorical. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More optimistic takes on this question are Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny and American Gods by Neil Gaiman. You may also want to read some of the Jorge Luis Borges stories, like The Aleph for example. --Dr Dima (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Springer: The Opera does present that question. One of God's songs is:

It's not easy being me. It's so not easy being me. Millions of voices making all the wrong choices, then turning 'round and blaming me.

The fights between Jesus and Satan are also fun. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to speak up for Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, too. It's not exactly pessimistic, but it does address some of the problems of being a god. John M Baker (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you conceive of a God? Then be silent about all Gods. -- Nietzsche. Vranak (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1886 Nietzsche declares God dead.

1900 God declares Nietzsche dead.

Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche predicted his own death though. "I know my fate. I am not a man, I am dynamite!" Or something to that effect. Vranak (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incarnations of Immortality series by Piers Anthony. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The character of Doctor Manhattan in Watchmen essentially becomes a god and has what I'd call a pessimistic view about it. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the extremely light side, there's Bruce Almighty which starts off with God being fed up with his job. Then there are the Preacher comics by Garth Ennis whose story largely revolves around what happens when God doesn't want to do his job any more...and seeing American Gods has already been mentioned, Gaiman's Sandman comics also more or less follow the theme of a god-like, quasi-immortal, quasi-omnipotent being who cannot really cope with the burden of his position. -- Ferkelparade π 19:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did somebody call me?

Clerical celibacy and Catholic priests[edit]

My question is, their celibacy is 100%?. I mean, can't they do ANYTHING related to their sexuality?. Even desire a woman?. Any article?. Thanks and have a nice week. --190.50.112.44 (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have two articles which overlap with the same information - Clerical celibacy and Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church). Basically, yeah, nothing sexual at all, after they are ordained. Of course, that is not to say that a priest will never desire a woman (or a man). Of course they will. You also do a lot of things you're not supposed to do, don't you? Why wouldn't they do the same? But that's not the point - the point is to overcome temptations, whether you are a priest or not. There are just extra rules for them because they are supposed to be committed to a higher purpose than regular people. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Britain"[edit]

Was the choice of King James VI & I to rename his dominions not only due to a need for a common name? Did it reference Henry VIII on the "ancient empire" he declared, that of the ethnic Britons or Bretons, the very same people the Tudors come from, the Tudors also having been in exile in Brittany and Earls/Duke of Richmond, a fief of Brittany since the Norman Conquest? Brittany, like Normandy, had been taken over by France by this point, only just recently. I could sum it up by asking whether it was as much for ethnic reasons, just as for political expediency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking if Britain is named after Brittany, then no, it was the other way around. Little Britain was named for Great Britain. See also History of Brittany#Early Middle Ages. Rmhermen (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that the OP is not asking about Brittany at all, but instead why James I of England (who was also James VI of Scotland) used the style King of Great Britain. While I don't know all the reasons for his choice, I feel safe in saying that the primary reason was that he wanted a style that represented the island as an entire unit, and the island was already well-known as "Britain," notwithstanding that the Britons had not been ascendant for about a millennium. James was interested in unifying his realm, so calling the whole thing "England" or "Scotland" was a complete nonstarter. John M Baker (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the term North Britain. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Convention, treaty agreements etc[edit]

Would it be against the Geneva Convention or other treaty agreements to coat bullets with biological materials that would cause an infection, like blood poisoning?

How about coating bullets in pig products (blood, fat, urine etc) as a psychological weapon to use against those who adhere to Islam or Judaism? Googlemeister (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Geneva Protocol. Yes I believe anything like that would be prohibited even by the very earliest agreements. Dmcq (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pig blood thing a goofy idea anyway. Some idiotic legislator proposed it some years ago, based on an urban legend about Black Jack Pershing. Here's a rebuttal from the Anti-Defamation League, of all places. --Sean 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was partly based on how the Indian Mutiny started... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a bullet travels through the air, friction causes it to heat up. So, between the heat and the friction, it is highly unlikely that any substance would remain both intact and (in the case of contaminants) useful all the way to the target. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it just be easier to oh, I dunno... just shoot them in the head instead? HalfShadow 03:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Countries for Euthanasia Without Terminal Illness Requirements[edit]

Is there any country where you can be euthanized on request even if you aren't terminally ill?20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list Assisted suicide#Legality by country should help. A quick scan suggests that plenty don't place it on Terminal Illness alone (well it depends on your definition of Terminal Illness) - but rather placing it more firmly in the hands of approval by a series of doctors. 17:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If your request can be made in the form of a particularly nasty crime, then many countries have the death penalty. Googlemeister (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "many countries" which enforce the death penalty but a small number. China, some Muslim countries and the USA are the main executioners. See our article on capital punishment. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many is more then a few, which is 5 or 6. I think 58 countries would qualify as many. Googlemeister (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it that way, would you consider 58 out of 197 many? TomorrowTime (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many is not the same as most, but this seems to have digressed into something for the language desk. Googlemeister (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Downes recently committed suicide in a form of assisted euthanasia at a clinic in Switzerland, where it's legal. He was not terminally ill, although his wife, who joined him, was. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a nitpick, but I think it's more correct to say he chose to die because his wife had chosen to die, and he did not want to carry on without her. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Around the world in 80 days[edit]

I've just finished the book and I wondered how long it would take nowadays. It could be done in less than eighty hours by plane, but how long by train and boat alone in the same route Fogg took? Assuming that entry into certain countries, like the US, was not hindered by passport issues, etc.

-- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Michael Palin: Around the World in 80 Days interesting. Palin attempted the trip in the late 80s, using only transport which would have been available in Jules Verne's time. It took him 79 days. He was shooting a documentary as he went, though. Gwinva (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's start at the beginning. According the German Railways timetable server, the fastest possible train trip from London to Brindisi (we aren't requiring him avoid using the Channel Tunnel, are we?) is just under 22 hours if you leave London St. Pancras station at 11:01 int he morning and change trains at Paris (with change of station), Milan, and Bari: you arrive at 09:59 the next day, one time zone east.

The next train is from Bombay to Calcutta, now Mumbai to Kolkata. According to the Indian Railways web site, this can be done in about 1 day and 12 hours by the Samarsata Express, leaving at 20:35 and arriving at 08:25 the second morning following. There are other trains in the day.

There are no long-distance trains from San Francisco any more, due to its location on a peninsula; he would have to start his journey to New York from an East Bay point such as Emeryville (getting there by Amtrak bus or urban transit), where the California Zephyr starts at 9:10 in the morning. It reaches Chicago at 3:50 pm (15:50) on the second following day (two time zones east). Then the Capitol Limited departs at 6:50 pm (18:50), arriving at Washington the next day at 1:15 pm (13:15), one more time zone east. Then there are trains leaving Washington at 1:25 pm weekends and 2:00 pm weekdays and Sundays, arriving New York at 4:47 or 4:50 pm (16:50) for a total time of 3 days 4 hours 40 minutes. All times according to the Amtrak web site. (There is also a direct Chicago to New York train, but it leaves later in the day and if everything is on time it's faster to go via Washington. There are no other feasible trains.)

The next rail segment was Queenstown (now Cobh) to Dublin. According to the Irish Railways web site, this takes about 3 hours 25 minutes with a change of train at Cork, with several trains every day.

Finally, returning to the German server, Liverpool to London takes 2 hours and about 10 minutes by most trains, and there are lots of them.

Of course, this assumes that the timetables are to be relied on, which is certainly not the case for Amtrak long-distance trains and I suspect not for Indian ones either. I think the other countries have a better shot at being reasonably close to on time. In any case, Fogg in the novel allowed 2 days for delays to be made up; his estimate by the timetables alone was 78 days, so I think that's what we'll need to compare against.

That covers the land parts of the trip; someone else can do the sea parts (and the sea/land connections and the travel within London). For many of these routes there may be no scheduled passenger ships any more, but travel by freighter or special charter is another matter, and of course the type of ship will affect the time requirement.

--Anonymous, edited 23:03 UTC, July 20/09.

(ec, after the better response by anonymous above) Well I think most of the rail sections will be reduced. The article says it took 7 days to go from San Francisco to New York, but I think the train goes from San Francisco to Chicago in less than 3 days, and I can't see it taking more than a day getting from Chicago to New York. The steamers seem similarly slow, it says it took 22 days in the book but the Pacific is about 5000 miles between Yokohoma and San Francisco so at say 25 knots (is that reasonable?) non stop a boat would get there in a little over a week. However, I don't know if any liners remain doing such a route, and they certainly wouldn't be booking it at that speed. If you took away the constraint of following the same route, you could probably do the whole thing much faster by taking the Trans-Siberian Railway, which didn't start construction in 1891 (and I think was off limits to Westerners for most of its history). The trip from Moscow to Vladivostok takes 6 days, 4 hrs (according to the article), and much of the trip from London to Moscow can be done by high speed trains (the total would take about 3 days). TastyCakes (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With Amtrak's reputation for being far far far behind schedule, it probably isn't advisable to use their own time tables. Dismas|^(talk) 06:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can take trains out of San Francisco. Either BART across the bay to Oakland, or Caltrain to San Jose and points south. I'm sure you can connect up with Amtrak one way or another. 67.117.147.249 (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, no long-distance trains is what I said. You used to be able to connect between BART and Amtrak at Richmond, but the California Zephyr no longer stops there, nor does it run to Oakland. Its Emeryville terminus is 1½ miles from the nearest BART station; its other East Bay stop, Martinez, is more than 5 miles from a BART station. Having said that, I see that Amtrak provides a medium-distance service, the Capitol Corridor, that among other things connects Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, and Richmond. So it would be possible to take BART to one of those points, then Amtrak for the short hop to Emeryville and another Amtrak train to Chicago: a shorter route than via San Jose. However, the Capital Corridor services are not particularly frequent, with up to 2 hours between train in the daytime. Of course the easy way is the Amtrak bus from San Francisco to Emeryville, but we're trying to use trains. Maybe the 1½ mile walking connection would be best. Or, of course, if you can manage it and it's not considered too far from the original route, take a ship that docks near Emeryville or Martinez in the first place. --Anonymous, 22:15 UTC, July 21, 2009.

I think TastyCakes' estimate of 25 knots for sea travel is optimistic. Wikitravel's article suggests it would take about 8-12 days to cross the Atlantic Ocean by cargo ship (compare that to the Queen Mary which took 4 days at a speed of around 30 knots).

As pointed out above, sticking to the same route might be too difficult. I suggest the following route:

London to Moscow by train = 3 days
Moscow to Vladivostok by train = 7 days
Vlaidvostock to Yokohama by ship = 3 days
Yokohama to Los Angeles by ship = 15 days
Los Angeles to Chicago by train = 2 days
Chicago to New York by train = 1 day
New York to Southampton by ship = 10 days
Southampton to London by train = couple of hours

In all around 41 days in a pretty punishing schedule and that's assuming everything runs to schedule, there are ships which travel between the ports and you are not waiting for a ship to either leave or dock for days on end, the trains run every day, and so on.

However, by avoiding the Trans-Siberian and staying close-ish to the original route, you could perhaps do this:

London to Naples by train = 1 day
Naples to Mumbai by ship = 14 days
Mumbai to Chennai by train = 2 days
Chennai to Hong Kong by ship = 10 days
Hong Kong to Yokohama by ship = 6 days
...then as described above = 28 days

Unfortunately, that would add 20 days travel, mostly by sea and that's assuming you don't get attacked by pirates. Astronaut (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York to Southampton on the Queen Mary 2 is 7 nights, call it 8 days. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give the times, but it is possible to cross the Eurasian continent by train: Hong Kong-Guangzhou-Beijing-Moscow-Warsaw-Paris-London . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found out that it will soon be possible to travel from London to India by train. The route is further south than discussed above, going via Istanbul, Tehran and Quetta (Pakistan) while avoiding Afghanistan :-) See seat61.com for detail. Astronaut (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2009 (UT

I went London-London in 90 days on container ship.--79.79.154.106 (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]