Humanities desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

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.

May 2[edit]

"Sexual attraction"[edit]

Inspired by this RefDesk question, I have some follow-up questions. Does anybody know the cause of sexual attraction in general? Also, what is the difference between "sexual attraction" from other forms of attraction or other forms of affection or something that is agreeable to one's tastes? When people say "I am sexually attracted to..." what does this mean? Is this related to sexual desire, or is it just an affectionate emotion for another person? Is this why some people like to identify their boyfriends/girlfriends as different from their other regular friends? Maybe the boyfriend/girlfriend is the "best friend", while the other friends are merely friends and a bit distant from the individual. Sneazy (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try Sexual attraction? Good luck in your quest for an answer ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "cause" you mean the efficient cause -- the mechanism in the brain that causes males to move toward females or vice versa -- then no, we really don't understand that well at all. We know some of the brain areas that are involved but have little idea how they work. If you mean the final cause -- the function that is served by having males move toward females or vice versa -- then I would say we understand that reasonably well. Looie496 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Constructivism vs Semantic Meta-ethics[edit]

According to the book "The Normative Web", moral constructivism, or at least a new version of it, belongs to moral realism. However, it is widely known that constructivist moral theories do not discuss meta-ethics in terms of semantics. Instead, it focuses on substantial meta-ethics.

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "For some constructivists, lack of interest in semantics is motivated by the conviction that the semantic task with which metaethics is mostly preoccupied is positively misguided (Korsgaard 1996a; Korsgaard 2003; Street 2007, 239). The philosophical issue worth worrying about is normativity, and this is not something that we can explain solely on the basis of semantics. Rather, explaining normativity requires philosophers to engage in other sorts of philosophical investigation, for instance investigation into the idea of autonomy and rationality (Korsgaard 1996a)."

I believe that Korsgaard defended constructivism by dismissing the practicality of semantics in meta-ethics. She affirmed the belief that moral constructivism does not need to have a semantic position.

My questions: 1. Are there any other moral constructivists who criticize the dominance of semantics in the study of meta-ethics? Who are they?

2. Do moral constructivists agree to call themselves realists or anti-realists? Or, would they rather support the view of Korsgaard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: They have no idea what you're talking about. Can you suggest some links? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has given lots of references and elaborated quite a bit. Why don't you just not respond if you don't know anything about the subject? This is a relatively advanced question in philosophy, and is not the sort of thing you can just "wing" based on two Wikipedia articles. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bugs. These are "floating abstractions": words divorced from evident connections to concrete meanings. If the OP wants a serious answer he should do the research himself, since he already has the references, and is looking for an interpretation. If he wants our opinion, which we do, but do not do, (but do), then he should give examples and links. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP's problem is quite different. They're hung up on the taxonomy of philosophical systems. It would be more helpful in studying philosophy to understand what each philosopher is saying than it is to pigeonhole everyone into a category or assign labels to it all. --Jayron32 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a baseless question, even if it does show confusion: I might respond more if I have the time tomorrow. Joshua is dealing with "textbook" metaethics, and the main lines in the debates are pretty well established, and he is just trying to see where those lines are.

Quick answers: 1. Yes: Most Kantians. 2. Realists. Korsgaard is a moral realist, and I don't see any reason why she would reject that label. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US military things named after Confederates[edit]

I note that USS Robert E. Lee (SSBN-601) and the M3 Lee tank were named after CSA general Robert E. Lee, and USS Stonewall Jackson (SSBN-634) (and the two USS Stonewalls that preceeded it) after Thomas Jackson. Were/are other notable US military items (ships, bases, units, equipment classes) named after other CSA figures? [I thought I was onto something when I found USS Forrest (DD-461), but no] When those two submarines were named, both after noted rebels, was there any substantive complaint that it was inappropriate to name US military units against officers chiefly famous for fighting against that same US military? [Yes, I'm aware that both Jackson and Lee were formerly US Army officers, and that the US has made great efforts to heal the wounds of the civil war.] 87.114.11.184 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M3 Stuart tanks. A Liberty ship isn't exactly notable, but there's SS James Longstreet. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Lee and Stuart (and I believe many others of the time) were names given by the British and then adopted by the Americans (who officially used numbers), which may have helped gloss over the issue. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grant and Sherman are the only other ones that I can think of. Alansplodge (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various forts, many listed here, more recognizable ones being Fort Bragg and Fort Hood. "Although naming forts and camps after distinguished military veterans from both the U.S. and Confederate Armies had become a common practice, it was not the official policy until the publication of a War Department memorandum dated 20 November 1939."[1] (I'm not sure that Braxton Bragg "distinguished" himself in quite the right way, though.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andrew and Clarityfiend, that was very informative. 87.114.11.184 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone die in the Tunguska event?[edit]

For the longest time that I can recall, the Tunguska Event article claimed that precisely zero people died in the impact. At some point, this source was used to add the claim that a single death was caused. Clearly, Earthsci.org is not going to be doing any original investigation, so I'm wondering if anyone can help dig up other references, better references, as to whether anyone actually died. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be very clearly known, considering that the main investigations came years later... AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that Earthsci.org writes "One older man at about this distance was reportedly blown about 12-15m into a tree" - 'reportedly'. They aren't saying it happened, only that it was reported to have happened... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, today, mentions for the first time I have ever heard someone dying. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither here nor there as far as our article is concerned, but I've always found it hard to swallow that no humans died (1 being functionally equivalent to 0 here). The area was and still is very sparsely populated, but 2,150 sq km is like a circle of radius close to 30 km. Not a living soul for 30 km in any direction is taking sparseness to extremes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Taking sparseness to extremes" could just about be the motto of Siberia. Looie496 (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not like Antarctica. According to Demographics of Siberia, Siberia as a whole has a population density of 3 people per sq km, but it fluctuates wildly, between 41 in Chelyabinsk Oblast down to 0.1 in Koryak Okrug. Let’s assume the Tunguska region had 0.1 people per sq km in 1908. That means that in 2,150 sq km, there would have been 215 people. Given the force of the blast, it’s not at all surprising that they were all totally obliterated, and given the huge area, it’s not at all surprising that nobody’s ever found any remnants of their housing. But that's not the same as saying there was nobody there.

I think we’d be on safer ground saying that “no evidence of any deaths has been found”, or “evidence of only one death has been found”, rather than “there were no deaths” or “there was only one death”. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming a smooth distribution. Two cities 100 miles apart will give a large area including them a small per acre population that will be a statistical illusion. There was a story in the last few months of a small religious refugee family that had lived in the region with no human contact for forty years. μηδείς (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which region? Tunguska? Anyway, a cite for that claim would be good, since that's even harder to swallow than what we're talking about. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Lykov family. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ghirlandjo, we cannot be too careful about what Jack swallows. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping one eye out for my welfare. Your concern is both gracious and fellatious. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What might be a better or alternative search strategy is to run if any bodies were recovered. I understand it was a year or two later but if the predators were also killed then some bodies may have been recovered. Then again think of the most rural, most remote part of Canada or the U.S. and then multiply that times 10, needles in a very massive haystack IMHO, add to that the prevailing 1900s and 1910s attitude by the Church and Tsarist government--as wrong as it is--that native Siberians were not really worth counting in the first place and you get an idea of how impossible the task might be and why no one has really spent much time trying to find out during that era.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That just strengthens my argument that it's wrong to say "nobody was killed". If they didn't even look for years later, how would they know? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement with that, I liked the earlier statement to the effect that no evidence or none recovered, or 1 reported etc. Sign me up for the Wikipedia expeditionary taskforce to Siberia to uncover the real story ;-). ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mizrahi supporting and in left wing parties in Israel[edit]

Is Amir Peretz the only Mizrahi/Sephardi Jew that is a left-wing politician?--Donmust90 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

You are as capable of going to Category:Israeli politicians and reading all of the articles as any of us are. --Jayron32 23:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, our article doesn't specify what soccer team he roots for? μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]