what's /his/'s opinions on absurdism? do you think life has an inherit meaning?
I always thought that from a biological standpoint the meaning of life is simply to contribute to the gene pool. As far as a deeper spiritual meaning I believe that their is no one inherit meaning of life. I like to think it's up to the individual to decide what their life means to them and pursue goals based upon that.
>>953894
Life has no meaning, we're just existing molds of flesh and bone.
>>953900
> molds of flesh and bone.
So is my dick yet your mum found it meaningful last night
>>953894
I find that "meaning" is a word that means "what is meant or intended to be conveyed by something" or "what is intended for something". I believe humans are the only ones able able to convey messages or intentions, so, ergo, life has no *inherent* meaning. For some reason people think this is depressing, and it should stop there, but I just said humans are the ones who have intentions. I see life as a blank canvas devoid of anything until the individual "paints" it with meaning. Just because there's nothing there doesn't mean there can't be.
Should the first twenty Medals of Honor, which were awarded for the massacre of women and children at Wounded Knee, be rescinded?
>>953081
No, if Aryan supremacy has taught us anything, Vikings massacring hapless civilians is the peak of honor and a warrior culture.
I am proud America has carried on that proud tradition of slaying helpless people.
We should keep it as a reminder of how far our attitudes have come
trying to smudge out the awful parts of our history harms us further
No because this isn't Germany.
Is The Invisible Hand just a madeup excuse to being selfish?
It's not really an "excuse" considering libertarians believe that selfishness is good and natural
>>952549
No.
But it is made-up.
It's funny how leftists create a whole narrative about how free-market is something that no one questions, at the same time they question it all the time at the media and universities.
The problem, of course, is that left-wing intellectuals are totalitarians by nature. If something they don't follow isn't given the "racism" treatment (ie considered completely outside the pale of acceptable discourse) they think it's too much.
The fact that there is people who believe in free-markets and that this people have a voice in public discourse is enough for left-wing intellectuals to believe that such discourse is hegemonic.
Is there a philosophical explanation for why humans enjoy music?
>>951392
>philosophical explanation
Is there a philosophical explanation for anything?
Just ask /sci/ 2bh, you might get an actual answer, or at least a few theories. Here you'll just get asspulling and conjecture followed by tired arguments.
Esoteric tradition describes Creation as a series of ascending and descending musical scales
>>951432
Musical scales, finally without the meme, are literally a social structure.
How did they communicate when different cultures met for the first times? Let's say first portuguese sailors to arrive to japan (pic somewhat related) or the first romans to meet with germanic tribes.
They would, like, point to things and say 'this table" or "me Hiro." And some stuff like greetings could be gathered by context. Once you get the basics you move on to more abstract concepts. Humans have dedicated brain regions to learn language, which are more active in childhood but still functional in adults, so learning language is an innate ability in most neurotypical humans.
>>950619
For each group there would likely be a few people that spoke some words of a common language. Needn't be the language of either group.
>>950619
Portuguese utilized Chinese to communicate with Nips.
Funnily enough. Portuguese was the first European language known by Nips, and when the Dutch came, the Japanese spoke to them in Huehue
All reason is to feel. we reason using what we know. what know through our senses. our senses create a feeling in our minds and that is how we know the world around us, even ourselves. whatever knowledge/reason/logic we build is built upon these feelings. logic and feeling are not contradictory but logic is the result of feeling. the common western trope of telling someone not think with feelings but instead use logic is a sign of lack of understanding of the human mind.
if all we know is by our sense of touch, smell, taste, hearing and sight, then how can reason be done without feeling? everytime we sense something it produces a feeling inside us. this fact is more obvious when we perceive something new for the first time.
prove me wrong!!!!!
bumpity bump
in most of scifi shows and movies, whenever they want to show a race of men with high intelligence, they show them as lacking in emotions. .e.g. the vulcans in star wars and i am sure you nerds are familiar with many such examples. this has always made me wonder. it is not just the nerds that believe that lack of emotions = high intelligence but there are even legitimate scientists that seem to convey this atitude that emotions hinder logical thinking and therefore belong to those with lower intelligence.
lets look at this claim with some logic. it is widely believed by the west that humans are more feeling and emotional and less robotic like out of all the speices on this earth. infact the word 'humanity/humane' also imply that to be human is to have greater emotions and feelings. but then how is it that this same culture could produce two contradictory views. let me explain the contradiction. are humans not the most intelligent species on earth ? then how could being able to feel more emotions and feelings equate to lesser intelligence. this test can also be applied to other animal speices. the dolphins are thought to be extremely intelligent. and guess what, they are also know to express a greater range of emotions than are found among the animal kingdom. when we apply logic to both humans and animals we find that far having emotions correlating with lack of intelligence, being able express more emotions implies greater intelligence.
i am also reminded of this episode in far cry where crichton in cloned into a posible future and a possible past version of his speices. and the future intelligent version is shown as having no emotional feeling what so ever, while the past dumb version is full of emotions and passion. even back then as a young man watching that episode, something did not sit well with me about that. something seemed contradictory. but back then i could not really imagine the kind of corruption that exists in the western mind. i know better now.
breathing carbon monixide. Feel fine. Hear fire alarm beep. Sounds like my alarm clock. Think hey I feel fine its probobly malfuctioning. Decide, no i changed the batteries a month ago should be ok. Leave house. Call fire department. Fire. Not dead because listened to reason. Also its not like feeling isnt involved with reason. feelings are an important part. Like in Casablanka, the guy wants to stay, but he knows she can do better without him so he lets her go against his feelings.
>You can do what you want but you can not will what you want
What did he mean by this?
He means that you can do what you want but you can not will what you want.
You can do what you want to do, but you don't have the power to choose what you want to do.
>>948469
Why not?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
heheheheheh "bearly"
>Russian Civil War
You mean the Jewish-Russian War.
>>956742
whats the deal with being retarded, pal?
>>956753
>the greatest human slaughter of all time
inb4 muh 60 gorillion, muh mao
Did hitler and stalin have any chance to get along?
hitler was a socialist, and stalin was a communist after all. (both have left wing ideals)
>>955175
"Socialism in One Country" is literally National Socialism, so yeah.
>>955175
No
What is Molotov Ribbentrop Pact
What do you think is going to be the most dominant apex of apex predators after man is no longer around? Lets be reasonable; based on the exponential growth we have produced in the last 200 years, our current patience and attention span, it's pretty doubtful we'll make it another 1000 or 500 without some form of apocalypse or three. You can use whatever scenario you want, however if we were to bomb the earth with radiation that might give insects an advantage, but that's venturing into science fiction. Some birds are pretty damn smart
Do you think we can even become completely extinct?
Do you think we're condemned for a never ending cycle of reducing ourselves into a dark-age world, and climbing back to where we are now, and repeating this forever?
Looking at the fossilization process, what do you figure will remain of our world in X-million years?
>>949730
>>Do you think we can even become completely extinct?
nah, most people are hedonists and will do anything to continue being so. Nobody is born a monk and even most monks fail to stop being hedonists. The good news is that it does not matter if we die and even the scientists claim that massive extinctions happened before and yet complex life started again. if you have faith in science, you do not have to worry. if you stop being a hedonist, you do not care if you die. All is well.
>>949730
>after man is no longer around
But that'll never happen.
HUMANS FOREVER
In less than 1 billion years the Sun will have expanded to the point that it's too hot on Earth for plants to undergo photosynthesis, so Earth will be essentially devoid of life for the last 3 or 4 billion years before the Sun swallows it.
I anticipate that climate change will cause massive migrations, which will strain our already limited resources beyond their capacity to feed us all. Massive food and water shortages, nations going to war over access to fresh water, massive riots as immigrants and refugees struggle to assimilate to their new home nations. I doubt anyone would use a nuke in such a scenario, but I'd be astonished if we weren't to lose a few billion people to droughts and famines in the next few centuries.
Of course, then there's the potential for a superbug to sweep through and kill off a lot of people, which will be easier to do once the oceans start to rise and habitable land starts to get more and more crowded.
Yes, of course we will one day become completely extinct. Happens to every single species. We will either evolve into another form of homo sapiens or we'll die out entirely. As to who the next apex predator would be, I can only assume it would be another primate. Though it'd be cool if crows or elephants took over, as they both demonstrate considerable cognitive abilities.
Planet of the Elephants. That'd be cool.
Parenthetically, I remember reading that Mount Rushmore is supposedly the one monument that will outlast everything else humans have built. It's supposed to still be recognizable in 200,000 years or something like that. Long after the skyscrapers have disintegrated back into the soil, after the houses and farmland have been reclaimed by nature, after all our bones have rotted away into dust, Mount Rushmore will still be there. So that will be the last evidence that we were ever here.
So were the Tuskegee Airman all they were cracked up to be. My professor said they were the greatest squadron in the american airforce. Is this true?
>>951942
>My professor said they were the greatest squadron in the american airforce. Is this true?
no
WE WUZ PILOTS
>>951942
Tell that faggot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
It's 2016 and God realises that modern technology and science makes belief in the Bible hard. He talks to you and only you in your sleep. You are now given the absolute knowledge that Jesus was real and he really did perform miracles.
Now what do you do?
...
...hedoes'tdo'nything?
idk, make a bible app for android and mac?
Have your daily Orthocuck thread.
Ask questions, discuss Eastern Orthodox Christianity, discuss related theology, philosophy and mysticism.
Welcome: Oriental Orthodox, FSSP/SSPX Catholics
Not welcome: PaganLARPers, Novus Ordo Cucks.
>>942848
What should I read if I want to convert to eastern orthodoxy
>>943275
I'd start out with Frederica Matthewes-Green's Welcome to the Orthodox Church. It's not one of the traditional ones, but it by far helped me the most.
>>943283
Ok, ill give it a look. Thanks.
Who was your favourite Bolshevik?
Bukharin.
>>955290
Stalin. At least he's spawned more memes.
Derzhinsky, a Pole who killed a shitload of Russians. That makes him a good guy in my book.
Would it be possible for Mexico to become the most powerful and influential power in NA during the XIX or it was always doomed to be surprassed by the US at some point?
>>954919
No, the country was too spread out and the initial governments were too easily overthrown because the Spanish colonial system of giving massive tracts of land to people gave them power over everyone they had working on it, akin to feudal arrangements. So whenever one of these landed nobles got fed up with the government, they planned a rebellion/ coup. Peasants were upset about something so they were always up for a fight, but little would change.
It's tough to be a strong country when you have large scale revolts every few years. If they'd let some northern provinces go, and some southern provinces they would've been able to focus on potentially developing their centra territories. But the leaders thought like the Spanish colonial masters did, that farming and agriculture was the only way. They were fucked from the start. How many ex-Spanish colonies have been successful nations?
>>955019
uh, Chile?
>>955019
Argentina was until they fucked up with Perón. And Cuba was quite succesful.
