Has anyone ever been able to rebut Betrand Russell's "Marriage and Morals"? Even Einstein said the work was brilliant.
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
>The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue.
>Even in civilised mankind faint traces of a monogamic instinct can sometimes be perceived.
>I should not hold it desirable that either a man or a woman should enter upon the serious business of a marriage intended to lead to children without having had previous sexual experience.
>Science enables us to realise our purposes, and if our purposes are evil, the result is disaster.
>Gluttony is regarded by the Catholic Church as one of the seven deadly sins, and those who practise it are placed by Dante in one of the deeper circles of hell; but it is a somewhat vague sin, since it is hard to say where a legitimate interest in food ceases and guilt begins to be incurred. Is it wicked to eat anything that is not nourishing? If so, with every salted almond we risk damnation.
Russell's father allowed Russell's mother to sleep with Russell's tutor, and Betrand Russell grew up to be a genius and win the Nobel Peace Prize.
>>1203570
Also, any rebuttal to his "Why I am not a Christian"?
> The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.
>There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."
>>1203570
kukolding is truly the thinking man's fetish.
really makes you think....
>>1203571
if you want repressive moralism- Jesus was the very man. This is the man who equated lustful thoughts with adultery.
What battle or war in history would you have wanted to participate in?
None?
Stalingrad, just to see the plume of smoke that formed a cross over the city.
Or Verdun just to see the destruction.
Heraclea, as a war elephant
Why aren't classics taught in school anymore? Why are we not at the same as we teach our children the basics of biology and chemistry also teaching them to speak Latin? Why are we not at the same time giving them original Greek all the way to modern day Philosophical texts to get them to think of problems or the world in a different way?
I'm not claiming any students today are stupid or that the educational requirements are rigorous enough. I'm just asking why they also aren't taught Classics. I think they're extremely meaningful.
They should.
The best thing I ever did in my life was reading the Classics.
If there is anything that would improve the lives of people via education is this.
>>1193807
Because modernity offers an adequate canon?
>>1193845
Learning philosophy and reading classic literature would only enrich their education.
Any French people here? Can you guys elaborate on how history is taught in your country?
France is pretty unique in the fact that it was a monarchy for most of its history, yet was perhaps the only country in Europe that willingly overthrew their own monarch (most monarchies in Europe either faded into some symbolic asset or were ended after the world wars), so that has to be reflected in the way history is taught, right? Does the French education system conform to Whig histiography and depict the monarchs as evil tyrants who needed to be eventually be overthrown and then everything was peaches and cream? Are the great kings of France respected and honored? What about Napoleon? Do French public schools describe him as a hero of the revolution or literally Hitler? I do know for example that Napoleon III is very hated in France mostly because Victor Hugo and his "muh republic" hated his guts.
So my question is, in short, how much republicanism (and perhaps multi-culti bullshit as well) has colored the French view of their own history, and especially the non-Republican stages of French history.
>>1208692
Very very short answer: the mainstream national narrative is one of continuity from Vercingetorix to François Hollande. Plenty of variations exist, obviously, but still the 'official' story is that each period and regime put something new into the big edifice that was France. Even Louis Bonaparte is remembered for his important economic reforms and the way he reconstructed Paris and other major cities and all that.
If anything, the narrative is harsh on losers: Louis XVI, Robespierre, Charles X... all get a fairly cold treatment not because of their respective agenda but rather because they failed in what they were trying to achieve (if they have had such goals). I think it goes to show that what the French worship more than anything is grandeur nationale.
>>1208789
>Very very short answer: the mainstream national narrative is one of continuity from Vercingetorix to François Hollande.
Somehow I find this relieving. Part of me feared French attempts to erase their own history. Vercingetorix being included is pretty weird though, didn't the French traditionally consider Clovis their first king?
>France is only country to overthrow monarchy
You speak English but you don't even know English history, get back in your mine pleb
Anyone out there who knows the early history of Slovenians?
So far ive heard theories that they where Illyirian, Roman, Vandal, Sclaveni, Venetii etc
so, wich one of theese is true?
I tihnk the name itself may help being Slo-venia
Slo with slavic origin
and Venia celtic if im not mistaken.
Does anyone know for sure?
>>1208481
Slovenians are descended from Slavs who migrated into the Balkans during the dark ages
The name is from Proto-Slavic *slověninъ, which basically meant 'people who can speak', as opposed to the unintelligble foreigners, *němьcь
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/slov%C4%9Bnin%D1%8A
>>1208495
Funny thing, we still to this day call germans "Nemci", wich means "mutes"
>>1208481
HOL UP
*smacks potica*
YOU BE SAYING
*evades taxes*
SO HOL UP
*builds house without a license*
YOU SAYING
*builds kozolc*
WE WUZ HYPERBOREA N SHIEEEET
Rate the following values according to their importance in a given society:
>diversity
>education
>equality
>homogeneity
>individualism
>participation
>peace (internal)
>peace (external)
>prosperity (economic)
>spirituality
>technological advancement
Feel free to comment and elaborate. Try not to add values to the list. Bonus points for historical examples/demonstrations.
>>1208408
>diversity
Daily reminder that egalitarians can't actually believe in diversity.
>>1208408
diversity
participation
equality
education
technological advancement
peace (external)
peace (internal)
individualism
prosperity (economic)
spirituality
homogeneity
>>1208408
Phoneposting so apologies for format
>>diversity
4
>>education
5
>>equality
8
>>homogeneity
3
>>individualism
1
>>participation
9
>>peace (internal)
2
>>peace (external)
6
>>prosperity (economic)
11
>>spirituality
7
>>technological advancement
10
>tfw you will never know what it feels like to conquer
>>1208280
You probably couldn't handle it tbqh.
>armies don't reward you with land loot slaves and the virginal women of the conquered any more and haven't for quite some time
Why even wage war any more? For cheap medals?
>>1208333
Pretty sure ISIS still does this.
How do you feel about neopagans?
I only respect the hellenic ones that actually read up upon all the stuff believers like cicero or ancient philosophers wrote about gods in a way that results in a modernity-compatible religion that doesnt get btfo by the first abrahamic theologician that pokes holes in it.
half nazis half stupid nerds
actually they're all stupid nerds but half of them are nazis
>>1208091
Well, you could argue that other legit ethnocentric religions like yazidis are nazis too them because they are ethnocentric.
Discuss
& humanities was a mistake
Some americans are retarded in a very special way?
HP is like 600 pages a book.
Aint no class in america that got time fo that
Are you happy rolling your rock up the hill every day just to watch it fall back down, anon?
yeah
>Not changing the trajectory you're rolling
baka desu senpai
I was wondering if anyone could help me identify this coin, I recently happened upon it from a friend. History behind it would be fantastic as well
>>1207627
additional picture
>>1207633
>>1207627
I'm no expert
At first I assumed the lettering was ancient Nordic. Then I saw the dragon, and knew it was Asiatic in design. The "5" is Indian, so is the lettering I think. From where in India or from what time, I don't know. That may not be a dragon, but a demon
I'll keep looking for the next 30mins - 1 hour.
>>1207658
appreciate it, i'm trying to write down the runes down now to translate. I thought it was pre-euro nordic....
Are Ancient Greeks and Modern Greeks the same peoole?
Do they share the same gene pool?
>>1207600
As close as it gets but still different.
>>1207600
No. The Ancient Greeks were Nordic. Read this for better understanding.
https://desustorage.org/his/thread/951078/#951078
Ignore the dissenters.
>>1207600
All we know is that ancient Greece set the standard for advancing human civilization and modern Greece can't even come close to that.
So there are a pair of edgy teens trying to convince me that Latin is useless and I should learn Esperanto instead. I told them Latin has way more literature to read, and they just told me that I was being dumb for preferring quantity over quality. They also pointed out Chine has Web pages in Esperanto but not in Latin.
All of this, in the humanities board of another language Chan.
What does /his/ think of this?
Both are pretty useless t.b.h.
>>1207581
For the field of humanities at least Latin is way, way more useful.
>>1207577
> Esperanto
> Speak to esperanto nerds
> Latin
> Read the primary sources of a civilisation that lasted for well over a thousand years
> Read a good chunk of the primary sources of societies that existed well after it
If you want to be a historian, Latin is extremely valuable. It's easily more useful for any academic or intellectual pursuit than esperanto ever will be.
If they were arguing in favour of say, German or French or Mandarin, maybe they'd have a point. I'd say being able to learn one of those languages will be usefull in more situations than Latin, but a conlang?
Esperanto is no more useful than Klingon desu. Any major ancient language is a better choice, particularly Latin.
How does /his/ feel about the value of some "religious" habits, if we disregard the religion in itself?
Personally I think there's a lot of value in asceticism and penance. I think self-discipline can have an intrinsic value, or at least lead us to become better more fulfilled individuals who spend out time thinking more about philosophical questions rather than the everyday trivialities. It's a sort of masochistic delight in the end. You do it solely for yourself.
>>1207572
Most of the good ideas int he New Testament are basically borrowed from Stoic philosophy with some butt-hurt thrown in.
>>1207580
Such as?
Why did gunpowder warfare not catch on in 16th century to 19th century Asia the way it did in Europe?
>>1207568
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Empires
Gunpowder was a trademark of Ottoman expansion.
>>1207568
If you think about it, 300 years between the 16th and 19th century isn't a long time. If you're grandpa is 80, and you live to 80, then that's already more than half that time
Anyways, there are a number of reasons. The gunpowder was different. Europeans were incredibly wealthy and could afford it, where as China probably couldn't. Japan blocked any outside foreigners, so they had no clue what Europe was doing. Some people like the Koreas were just too far away to trade with any one producing gunpowder
![1425084704629[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vNcfkAO.jpg "1425084704629[1]")
