Is scientism, etc. anti-intellectual and even philistine? It seems like it ultimately leads to a marginalization of the arts, philosophy, and literature, and so on, because since the scientific method cannot provide valuation, the basest whim is seen as equal to the most cultivated taste, the liberal capitalist idea of value is applied to all aspects of life.
What color was Joan's hair? There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. Sometimes jet black, sometimes red, sometimes brownish.
Can someone explain to me the whole Third Rome meme? Did Russia's claim have legitimacy? if so, did they lose it with the Russian Revolution?
That pretty much covers it. Outside of that it's mental gymnastics.
Ivan III also married Sophia Palaiologina who was not porphyrogennetos, meaning she had zero rights to the throne, and Rurik dynasty got changed to Romanovs then to Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs anyway.
I have one question that I cannot seem to find an unbiased article on. Did Constantine or Jesus found the Roman Catholic Church? Please, no memes, no deus vult posting. I want an unbiased look at this, as it is a pretty important part of the Faith.
Jesus definitely didn't. If anything, the title of "1st Pope" is pegged on St. Peter, so you could say he founded the Catholic church. I believe Constantine oversaw the formation of the Nicene Creed though, so you could say he's fairly responsible for guiding the church towards the form it now takes.
Jesus established a sort of church consisting of his apostles. Along with Paul, the church quickly splintered into many pieces, which themselves splintered as a result of theological differences. The Roman Catholic Church was established centuries later and reframed history as one truth (that they happened to have) and many heresies (anyone who disagreed with them) instead of the actual plurality of interpretations that existed.
Well, the claim by Catholics is that Jesus made Peter the first Pope, so technically that would mean Jesus founded the Church, which is why I asked it that way. I am just confused because there is not a pope mentioned in any of the epistles. When I look online all I find is biased protestant or biased Catholic articles, which is why I ask for an unbiased analysis of the situation. Basically, this is a question about the legitimacy of the Church.
Felt like making a thread about a specific question I had but other questions that don't deserve their own threads are also welcome.
Maybe somebody here will know what I am talking about, a few years ago I read what seemed like an academic paper or some kind of essay concerning tyrannical mothers in the ancient world. It described several extreme practices, specifically of women abusing their children in strange and perverted ways. If I remember it correctly it was trying to explain why grown men preferred their own sexual company in the ancient world and what the...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Why are empires seen as evil and kingdoms as good?
>mfw free market capitalism was proven wrong in the span of 28 years
Post your favorite graffiti from Pompeii
>Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!
II.7 (gladiator barracks); 8792: On April 19th, I made bread
>you will never enjoy the simpler pleasures of life after a long day of slitting throats at the Colosseum
>you will never give that bread to that unwed QT in the top row who you couldn't help but notice cheering you on every step of the way
>you will never know the heartache of knowing it is never to be, as your life as a slave gladiator is luxurious but far too short.
I didn't even know these feels existed.
What were the greatest military blunders ever /his/?
Is it true Europe was totally irrelevant until the fifteenth century?
To this day we can see that the Sunni/Shia debacle is heavily politicized, where Shia is concentrated in Iran and their historical sphere of influence.
Under what political circumstances was the schism created and what does it have to do with Persians? Is it a coincidence or were there ethnic undertones?
>Under what political circumstances was the schism created and what does it have to do with Persians? Is it a coincidence or were there ethnic undertones?
Yes. 100%. Persian Islam is completely different from Arabic Islam and that's both because of ethnic and cultural differences, and the fact that Persians had a great empire before the Arabs came along and subjugated them so the Persians resented the Arabs greatly which is why they devised their own philosophy on Islam.
The Sunni/Shi'a split is nearly as old as Islam itself. Sunni's favoured Abu Bakr as the first Caliph and believed any one of the Quraysh tribe could be Caliph, Shi'a favoured Ali and believed that only members of the prophet's family could be Caliph. History deepened the divide and many theological differences developed over time.
The Persians had practically nothing to do with the split. The reason Iran is mainly Shi'a is because an Azeri Twelver Shi'a dynasty called the Safavids...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Do we really need authority to protect us from ourselves?
Is the sacrifice of freedom for security beneficial in the long run?
>nationalism didn't exist in any form until the 18th century
>Genesis obsesses over the historical nations and their creation, and how God is gonna create the Jew nation through his chosen ones
Autists think that modern nation-state nationalism based on enlightenment ideals and populism is the only thing that can be called nationalism. This is the only type of nationalism there is and nothing else counts.
It's sort of like saying that religion didn't exist before Abrahamic religion, or that war didn't exist before guns.
>Relive history by playing as a real-life character during the French Revolution. Help lead France to her destiny and succeed where your character failed. Watch out for the guillotine.
Can we just write off all critical theory as bs peddled by the academia classes?