>other humanities such as philosophy
This kind of discussion pops up all the time on other boards, it's cool to have a place where it's not totally off topic.
I wanna talk art, specifically what makes something art, and whether different works can be "better" or "worse" than another.
Like, we all have this idea in us that Beethoven (for example) is a better composer than, say, a kid learning piano. And that more experimental works are of more value than something cliche and unoriginal. What makes that so?
Interesting point. It puzzles me that I can't even think of a reasonable definition for what is art.
However, for the Beethoven vs. the kid, I suppose music needs harmony.
If I'm not mistaken, some musicians attempted to make music without harmony in the early 20th century, but everybody gave up because they couldn't listen to it
>I suppose music needs harmony
See, this causes all sorts of problems though.
Like, in terms of just music you've got all sorts of improvisational genres, atonal music, John Cage's shenanigans, and so on.
For the rest of art, this would mean that there's some kind of ruleset an art form must abide by in order to be art, limiting experimentation and the like.
I mean, maybe that's the case, but it doesn't sit right with me.
experimental works are only seen as valuable now because we are in a post-modern age of art. before it was seen as degenerate, but now with the world changing so fast, at least some experimentation in art gives it credence. What is considered art is a reflection of the time from which it comes.
What would have happen if the Roman Empire somehow invaded China
Probably would be shortly defeated because he would be facing the only other as massively centralized empire of the world in their home turf, while months away from their home with a possibly hostile Iranian population on his back fucking with their supply lines.
Better question would be who would win between a Roman Legion or one of the armies of the various Chinese dynasties.
Asking who would win invasion wise is retarded either way because the geography puts neither close for a practical war.
Why is it the best philosophy?
It's not just pure hedonism, prior to what some people think. There's actually a lot of thought behind it. It's also not entirely antithetical to Stoicism. Both philosophies have similar views on death for example.
I agree with a lot of what he had to say. Modern philosophy will never agree on his shit or anything for that matter because "le what if you take what he's saying to it's logical end?" crap.
Is this the most embarrassing military defeat in History?
>So great was the shame, and the ill luck thought to adhere to the numbers of the Legions, that XVII, XVIII and XIX never again appear in the Roman Army's order of battle. The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was keenly felt by Augustus, darkening his remaining years. According to the biographer Suetonius, upon hearing the news, Augustus tore his clothes, refused to cut his hair for months and, for years afterwards, was heard, upon occasion, to moan, "Quinctilius Varus, give me back...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Why did Jews get Israel after WW2, /his/?
Bad UK policies, people wanting to screw the UK, nazi germany and those jew refugee ships sinking made the world few bad for the jews.
Also, >>8396, Zionists were much more competent at terrorism than Muslims.
Was rapid, post-WW2 decolonization in Africa, Arabia and Asia a mistake? Considering the wealth of nations such as SA and Rhodesia, which kept colonial structures (somewhat) in place, and the instability and poverty that occurred elsewhere, would it have been preferable to keep the colonies, and slowly pull out over say, 50 years?
Ever since racial theory was thrown out of the window it became hard to make a good point for people staying under the rule of some foreigner group.
It would just keep on hogging resources while the population would be as unwilling as ever.
I read a book on the African decolonisation processes a few months ago. It really did seem that it was just the Africans' anger at the idea of a slow orderly withdrawal which fucked them in the end and left them in the hands of corrupt dictators in artificial countries.
Even if they were able to militarily defeat the US Navy somehow, did Imperial Japan ever have enough actual manpower to occupy and pacify the whole West Coast of the United States on top of occupying China and Southeast Asia?
ITT: We post historical leaders who would have been ashamed of their countries if they saw them today
Can it be fixed?
/his/ humour thread
How come Mussolini never got the same success as Hitler? Why didn't Mussolini get a cutting edge military to kick British ass? I would say he could, at least a good navy!
Let's discuss this great empire.
It was overshadowed by Roman state, but it was pretty interesting.
How does this make you feel?
Favourite British Monarch and why?
Post old flags that don't exist anymore.