How did the qualities of compassion, pity, humbleness and mercy come to be?
How did (some)humans start having these characteristics when no human society(including today's capitalistic socially darwinistic society) has encouraged them, while some(like roman and far right dictatorships) have abhorred them?
From an evolutionary standpoint there's no reason for them to even exist since they go against the brutality of natural selection and survival of the fittest and no other species exept humans exhbit these traits.
So again how do these traits exist...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Has there ever been someone who harmed the progress of humanity and caused destruction as much as this faggot? Honestly, he was cucked and in return he decided to cuck the whole world.
What went wrong?
> steal 70000 tons of gold
> bankrupt 70000 of times
How this is even possible?
> 75000 years ago
> shit happened as never before
> or even after
> nearly extinct as a species
> only 1000 humans survived
> 90% of genetic diversity lost forever
Never Forget the Greatest Tragedy in history. ;_;7
Other believe it would happen again some day in the future.
What is he even trying to argue? Enlightenment=Myth? Is it worth it to read through the whole book?
It's literally about how the three ideologies of the Enlightenment(nazism, stalinsim and liberal capitalism) are totalitarian in character and their essence is scientific rationality which is Totality.
Lechia is a historical and/or alternative name of Poland.
ITT: post /his/bandos
I always wonder, would the Brits have done better in this particular scenario if their equipment was less modern and went back to the plate and mail of late medieval times?
Assuming of course the Zulu wouldn't have been armed with rifles either.
I think the only problem was underestimating a group of people who you want to enslave/colonize whatever you want to call it.
Africans didn't have the same mentality as Indians, they couldn't approach it like that.
>sorry to ignore you op.
The late medieval army of England was a few knights accompanied by semi professional men at arms who were more akin to mercenaries with a bulk of undisciplined peasants who were prone to fleeing at a moments notice
Well the core of the question was if they would have been better off trading firepower for armor.
But actually I am quite sure you are wrong and medieval armies professionalized quite a bit at the end.
Is there anything worse than this? A retard ending a debate with "I win" before I even get a word in eh. I can't even begin to describe how stupid this person was.
What do you guys know/think about my country?
1. No pedophilia-hebephilia 2. No raping-molesting 3. No gore-violence 4. No cheating-lying 5. ?
1.no shitposting. 2 no unoriginal comments. 3.no posting unrelated pictures. 4.no unnessecery memeposting 5.no mean posting
pic unrelated, also fuck you op
Is it fascism?
And he loves messing with my feelings with meaningless coincidences. I can't ignore the fact that there has been so many coincidences.
i deeply feel like as if there is someone controlling my life. its like "lets make anon cry today. lets make anon get in trouble." I swear to god, my soul is resonating sometimes in sync with the universe and I legit get premonitions now about the future. It's like I almost fully recognize the pattern. I usually get these premonitions asking myself "what does god want for me right now?" And I have been eerily predicting things now. I wonder how far I can go until I'm nothing but a jaded soul.
Can an omniscient God and free will coexist? If God both knows and created everything, then did He created us knowing that we will deny Him and burn in hell?
I think both existing is paradoxical, especially if you also invoke that God is supposed to be "all good."
But christfags are just going to >muh god and say we can't understand it so it's pointless to argue.
That would resolve the problem but Christianity is not dualistic. Personally, I think it is important to limit God's attributes. Jung for example thought of God as not being unchanging and all-good. Instead he thought God was undergoing individuation through history just as we are.
Was Nietzsche the 'Ayn Rand' of the 1800s? His ideas (master/slave morality, will to power, etc.) all seem to favor the strong (edgy) individual over the weak members of society.
>I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!
(Friedrich Nietzsche. Nachlass, Fall 1880 6 )
Obviously it favors the strong over the weak, as it can be read on the §2 of The Antichrist. But there is still the question of how we should interpret what Nietzsche means by weakness and strongness, if he is thinking merely of the body or instead of the will itself, which as the whole nature of something includes the body but doesn't limit itself to it. As he said in >>1307457, sometimes the external strongness can be a shield to inner weakness.