>tfw no pre-colonial ruins.
>>913740
B-but the Portuguese stole the country from the injuns!
Brazil is part of the Western Christian European white civilization. Other groups/ethnicities are merely aggregates.
>>913819
>Trust me, I'm white
Were there any settled tribes in pre Colonial Brazil?
Is their any independence movement to speak of?
>culture
>history
>>913477
the independence movement is a complete meme
>culture
"we're Poles but actually we're Germans actually fuck you"
>history
lmao
>>913477
Coal
>>913477
Europe is full of independence movements
Did gladiators fight for real or were their battles choreographed like modern day American Wrestling?
>>912649
It was real.
What wasn't real was that it was all the time deathmatches.
There is a gladiator cementary showing well battle wounds so it was real but it wasn't constand deathmatch either Flamma is said to lose 4 battles and usually gladiators were killed off outside of the arena if they were too crippled to continue their carreer.
They were real but also heavily dramatized. Galadiators were to refrain from killing their opponents if possible and to draw out the combat so as to appeal to the crowd and lower the risk of loss of profit for their owners. Gladiators were expensive to maintain after all.
Just looking for those nasty questions which go back to antiquity (or maybe more recent times), and continue to perplex mankind even today.
There aren't actually a lot of philosophical problems which haven't seen progress.
Zeno's paradox has had some rudimentary answers, and could possible be solved by physics, at least most of its variants.
I guess the paradox of tragedy and the ship of Theseues are pretty big ones still.
There has been a lot of attempts to answer these two but there seems to be no general consensus, as far as I know.
It is also important to note that even if we see progress the answers may drastically change from period to period. Even if we revert our belief to the same answer we believed 1000 years ago, it might be because we have new philosophical knowledge and insight, and thus have made progress.
the dark knight was a bad movie people only like it because heat ledger died
>>912400
Nigga we haven't even worked out how to formulate the question of the meaning of being yet.
So does Jesus' sacrifice and crucifixion negate the laws of the Old Testament?
>>912257
>inb4 "fulfilled" memery
Negate? No.
Fulfill? Yes.
>>912257
>His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image
And I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't fuck guys
Anyone know any good documentaries about the 116 year conflict between England and France?
Also any informative TV series about individual battles like Agincourt, Crecy, Patay etc would be greatly appreciated.
>>912246
Calling it one war is pretty silly. It was actually about 4 wars. The 1st won by the English, the 2nd by the French, the 3rd again by the English, and then wrapped up with a final French victory.
>>912249
Calling it a conflict between the French and the English is pretty silly.
What I'd like to know is how it affected English-French relations. Is this where the whole 'Englishmen and Frenchmen are mortal enemies' thing comes from?
What does /his/ think of Romanticism?
Pic related is a Romantic painting.
>>912134
Romantic art is mostly boring with a few great pieces. Romantic music is solid overall. Romantic poetry is GOAT.
Sappy, meaningless crap for bored, rich aristocrats of the 19th Century. Modernism kicked it in the nuts, got in a race car and sped away, giving it the finger as it whimpered like a dandy on the floor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_and_Romanticism
So, what was the Weimar Republic like? Was it this bastion of progressive thought, democracy, and art that my college textbook wants me to think it was? Was it the degenerate hellhole /pol/ tards want me to think it was?
>>911443
>what is the truth
>is it what's in the textbook, written by a professional and deemed accurate enough by a college professor
>or what a bunch of autistic manchildren internet nazis with no sources want me to believe
Is this really a difficult question for you to answer?
>>911454
Well, the textbook and professor have made literally no mention of the German Civil War, or how the Weimar republic came into being, only that it's great, so I'm smelling a rat.
>>911476
Hmm. That's a little concerning. But they could just be trying to challenge the preconception that Weimar was an unmitigated disaster. Have they mentioned the crash and Weimar's idiotic response to it yet?
How significant was the cultural exchange between prehistoric Iberia and North Africa? Was the peninsula dominated by Celts?
>>911278
>How significant was the cultural exchange between prehistoric Iberia and North Africa?
Very little. It wasn't significant until Carthage invaded the south.
>Was the peninsula dominated by Celts?
If you also consider Basques to be celtic, then yes.
>>911278
No the Iberians where much more diverse. Not only ethnically but also culturaly .
That´s why the roman conquest takes so long.
>>911278
>How significant was the cultural exchange between prehistoric Iberia and North Africa?
Unclear that there was any in prehistoric times. Certainly there is no record of Berbers or other Afroasiatic-speaking peoples in Spain before the arrival of the Carthaginians.
>Was the peninsula dominated by Celts?
Mostly. The northeast coast, Ebro valley, and eastern coast were all apparently Vasconic-speaking, but there seems to have been heavy cultural and social exchange between the two groups. There was a people in the southwest called the Tartessians or Turdetans whose origins and identity are unclear. There were also some Indo-Europeans in the western part of the Iberian peninsula who may not have been Celtic.
The what, what, what??
>Spiritual
>>911204
>Holy
>Roman
>Shitpost
>>911204
>little
>French
>peepee
War of Roses dullest war ever? Discuss
>a struggle for the throne of a kingdom, with the perfect mix of court intrigue, political maneuvering and warfare
Yeah, no
>>911146
No
>>911153
England vs England = Dull asf
Unless you'd care to red pill me maybe it'd change my opinion
Any opinions on the rosary, other prayers for it, etc?
>>910950
Pagan, goes back to Babylon, as does everytghing else in Romanism, use at peril of your soul.
>>910970
anyone have ideas of how to get fundamentalist anon to take his meds?
>>910970
How is the rosary even remotely pagan?
Read some Kant ethics today, went over it in a lecture. It's not just a 100 level course, I promise. I encountered a problem though; unless I'm wrong, Kant says:
A) It is our moral duty to assign moral motives.
B) ONLY people who choose perform their duty for the motive of performing duty are good; choosing to do good for your own sake, be it for ulterior greed, reputation, or even self-satisfaction, is not moral.
Point B suggests that duty is a motive, as it is a reason for which people choose to do things. Point A suggests that if it's a moral one, it must have been assigned, as it would not be out moral duty to assign motive if they existed already.
This means that, prior to the assignment of moral value to the concept of duty, it was not your moral duty to assign moral motives. Ergo, anyone who assigned moral value to the motive of duty is not doing so for the sake of moral duty, as it was not valuable when they made the decision to do so. Since they were not assigning moral value to duty for the sake of doing their moral duty, they were immoral to do so, as stated by point B in Kant's own words.
(1/2)
>>910920
Here are the attempts I've made to argue with my point:
1) Moral duty could have existed in nature as an integral part of humans.
-but that violates point B: if fulfilling moral duty is human nature, then fulfilling it would be inevitable; that suggests all decisions by an individual fulfill their moral duty, which contradicts B given that B claims only certain decisions with proper motives do.
2) The assignment of that value reaches backwards in time, much in the way the assignment of the word "square" can be applied to items fitting the current definition of "square" even if they existed before the word was assigned definition. Ergo, by assigning moral value to assigning moral value, you are justifying the assignment itself and all future ones.
-but that's killing your own grandfather. If we decide moral value exists eternally, then there never was a reason to instantiate it in the first place. That means it wasn't anyone's moral duty to instantiate moral duty, so no moral person could have done so, which in turn means it can't exist eternally as there needs to have been an assignment at some point in order for it to exist in such a fashion, even if that assignment causes it to have existed prior.
Am I misrepresenting Kant or is he just full of it when it comes to ethics?
(2/2)
Kant is full of it when it comes to ethics for two reasons.
1. Like all moral philosophers, his 'objective system' is really nothing more than axiomatically asserting his favorite values as the Good-In-Itself, then creating the most efficient means to achieving those values. All moral philosophies start by asserting, by axiom "This is Good, this is the most important thing" and everything past that is just creating an elaborate system around that. Whether that "Good" by eudaimonia, or pleasure, or power, or 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number', or 'duty', its all the same.
2. His system is literally the inversion of why human beings created values. Human beings created values as abstractions of their own desires. To pursue these values, they instinctively formed into reciprocal groups. To keep order in these reciprocal groups and aid in their shared goals, they created laws to add a negative incentive to those who harmed the group.
Kant literally is the inversion of morality. He takes the laws, which are twice removed from Value, as the important thing, and everything beyond that is irrelevant. Men invented honesty because lies hurt them, then invented laws against deceit to make lying unattractive, and now a man comes along saying its more important to tell the truth, even if the world should end around you.
What a ridiculous notion.
>>910920
>prior to the assignment of moral value to the concept of duty
>...they were immoral to do so, as stated by point B in Kant's own words.
You can't do that. You are denying the antecedent of B (why?), but you accept the consequent. Of course you must arrive at a contradiction (see contrapositive).
A states: You must choose a motive.
B states: The only motive you may choose is duty therefore choosing any other motive is wrong.
That is, unless you get stuck up in the semantics of "duty", in which case you end up in a loop where in A you require "duty for motives", and in B "motives for duty". I have never read Kant, but I assume he didn't intend to troll his readers such. This is exactly the problem you have in >>910922 and there is no resolution for it.
If you want to resolve your problem with the word "duty", then view the duty in A as a higher level duty from the one in B. It is also questionable whether is was properly translated (originally in German I believe).
Also, you can't bootstrap any system of values, like this guy >>911001 said:
>1. Like all moral philosophers, his 'objective system' is really nothing more than axiomatically asserting his favorite values
But I disagree with:
>its more important to tell the truth, even if the world should end around you.
>What a ridiculous notion.
If you agree that your world will end anyway, and the proportion of your existence is infinitely small compared to the Universe, then you arrive at Stoicism, and the notion of "Always tell the truth." makes very much sense.
Is there an actual belief system/philosophy that I can follow, or is nihilism the only logical belief. So far most religions have lost their effect on me
Judaism
>not born into it so why bother?
Christianity/Islam
>most members are genuine autists that can't agree on shit.
Eastern religion
> Don't want to be edgy.
Inb4 fedora
>I haven't read any religious literature: the thread
Most post-Nietzsche philosophy operates perfectly fine without absolute morals
>>910639
Petty reasons for not looking into those religions.
>Marie Antoinette did not say let them eat cake in any way shape or form
>Marie Antoinette's spending wasn't extraordinary for a queen in that time period, didn't actually bankrupt the country, and was even less than some of the other French royal family members at the time
>Marie Antoinette didn't hate poor people and expressed sympathy for the plight of poor people on numerous occasions
>yet the go-to insult for any politician or figure is to call them "Marie Antoinette" and imply that they dislike poor people, are spending to ruin, or otherwise bring up "let them eat cake"
can someone explain this
>not posting the Kirsten Dunst interpretation of Marie
rectify this mistake immediately
>>910552
France was the first country and culture destroyed by militant leftism. Look at modern ejucashen to see why leftists shouldn't be allowed to write history.
>>910571
>ayo teach when we finna learn about when we was kings an shit?
