Was he right /his/?
>>893831
Somewhat.
>>893831
about what?
>>893831
Who???????????????????????????????????????
What was the coolest thing in the Dark Ages? Can be person, event, culture, buildings, peoples/armies, etc.
The fact that it didn't exist is pretty cool
>>893812
it did after rome and before charlemagne
>>893812
Upvoted
How does /his/ feel about Socialist Humanism? It was a fantastic intellectual revolt against the parasite of Stalinism that had infected the international political left in the 1950s.
> Socialist humanism asserts that human needs (bearing in mind all the difficulties of this term) are the only valid criterion by which to assess institutions and economic and social arrangements: these must be made to measure people, rather than people being chopped about or stretched on a Procrustean bed in order to measure “circumstances” or “historical necessity.” In line with this assertion, a long derided trend within the socialist movement appears to be reviving Utopian (or “socratic”) socialism, that is, the vindication of the right of the moral imagination to project an ideal to which it is legitimate to aspire; and the right of the reason to enquire into the aims and ends of social arrangements, irrespective of questions of immediate feasibility: in brief, to ask questions of the order of “Why?” and not only of “How?” It must be stressed that this is a trend not in the abstract, but within the socialist and communist movements; that is, accepting that the transition to socialism in one of its many forms is a necessary precondition for building a desirable and rational society, nevertheless it asserts that choices can and must be made along the way – indeed, unless such choices are consciously made the road to socialism may end in confusion or disaster, and, at the least, we will fail to enlist to the full the creative faculties of those who build it.
Sign me up.
>>893686
>Socialist _____
Into the trash it goes.
>>893686
Read QR, Outlook, Imre Nagy
What was he right about?
What was he wrong about?
>What was he right about?
His approach to life
>What was he wrong about?
Everything else
>>893625
>What was he right about?
Last Man and Individual-Tribe relationship
>What was he wrong about?
Everything else
>>893625
>What was he right about?
Facial hair
>What was he wrong about?
Everything else
>>893605
No. Suvarov is an idiot. If you honestly believe him, you have either not gone over the material very thoroughly, or you are also an idiot.
By the way, "Oh yeah, he might attack me at some point in the indeterminate future, but also might not, depending on how things going, so I'll attack him now" does not make a pre-emptive attack. At best it's a preventative attack, and more likely it's just a flimsy rationalization.
>>893611
Tbh, I haven't even read him, I just know that there are people who hold this theory, and I thought starting a discussion between those who believe such theory and those who disregard might would make an interesting thread and a way to understand the reasoning behind such theory and see whether it's faulty or not.
>>893623
>disregard might would
I meant "disregard it would".
Post speeches, interviews, etc from the early days of audio recording when it was still a novelty.
To start something that gets posted often; Civil war vets doing the rebel yell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6jSqt39vFM
a /k/ classic
'Infantry Columns' (Boots, boots, boots) WW1 poem by Rudyard Kipling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGkyhaMdpto
Thomas Edison talking dolls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bgXH7U2Ja0
>>893607
dear god
Most irrelevant US president?
Hard mode: Post-Coolidge presidents only. Though, if you really want to, you can pick those 1880-1900 presidents too.
They're all controlled by Zionist Jews.
>>893532
Some relied on them less though.
Gerald Ford
Why does everyone hate this book? Why is it bad? Seems to have a good message to me.
>>893433
No
No like I'm serious guys, I want an answer.
>>893417
>ABC for baby perfidies
For anyone who wants to read it, go to this link
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00086056/00001/2j
Highly recommended.
As long as I believe in Christ am I allowed to believe in aliens and demons and angels and djinn and deities from other religions? When Jesus overturned the Old Covenant did he do away with the Mosaic "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? I ask because I was raised Catholic but feel uncomfortable with the faith after deep psychedelic and occult and mystical and meditative experiences involving seemingly supernatural or paranormal events not easily explained in a Christian/Catholic context.
Christians will tell you that stuff mentioned by jesus and the new testement authors still apply. that would imply worshipping only Yahweh is included, but you can eat food that was an offering in a pagan temple as long as you don't think of it as woshipping that god. paul is silly
you can't accidentally worship something, don't worry so hard about it
also i want to add that OP is a faggot for asking such a question
How effective would Marian-era Roman arms, armor, and tactics have been during the High Middle Ages in Europe? Assuming that we're using Catholic Mediterraneans as a reference.
probably pretty well
High middle ages were characterized by spearmen and heavy armored cav, which is nothing that the Romans haven't seen before.
>>893441
Wait, wasn't steel far more abundant in the middle ages than in Roman times?
Also, afaik medieval cav tactics were copied from Cataphracts, didn't the Romans often have difficulties dealing with those even?
Also, afaik not every legionary had a lorica hamata. IMHO, the romans would get raped pretty hard by longbowmen and heavy cav charges.
I think historians use the phrase "a roman legion would sort things out in area XYZ" to refer to the unorganized armies of the time, rivaling lords, and the miserable condition society was in as opposed to the roman empire. But in battlefield tactics alone, I don't think (Marian) Romans would stand a chance.
>>893408
Poorly.
We're talking about a literal thousand year tactics and weapons difference, here. Despite what the memes say, there was a bunch of advancements made during the middle ages, and the Roman Legionaries would be outclassed, especially in terms of metallurgy, armour, and weapons.
If Roman Legions could be beaten by its contemporaries: Germanic tribes, what makes you think they'd do better against there much more advanced, numerous, descendants?
How many hours a day do you think the average person (let's say in Western Europe but any examples anywhere in the world are welcome) worked prior to the industrial revolution?
The reason I ask this is because I've been reading a book (written by an economic philosopher, not an historian) that suggested that on average prior to the industrial revolution people spent about 3 hours a week on what we'd consider 'work' (IE ensuring their survival needs were met).
She cited a work called "Stone age economics" which claimed that Kung men hunted from two to two and a half days a week with an average workweek of fifteen hours. She also quotes Dr Frithjof Bergmann as saying "For most of human history, people only worked two or three hours a week. As we moved from agriculture to industralization, work hours increased..."
I found these statements a little surprising. I was always under the impression that before many of the conveniences of our present lifestyle, things were more time-consuming and the average person toiled away hunting or harvesting. I have a hard time imagining the average feudal serf only working for three hours a week, for example.
Does anyone have any knowledge of how true the above is in different circumstances?
Are we, on average, spending more of our time making a living than other societies before us?
pic semi related
I know that hunter-gatherers spent little time working, as to peasants working farms, they had tons of holidays to party and drink shitty beer.
Remembered this video and dug it up just for you, OP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMpxwbYyhU
:)
>>893457
This.
It was pretty shitty being a peasant in the Middle Ages, but working super-hard wasn't one of the reasons for it. Thanks to the Church's calendar of feasts and holy days, people up and down the economic ladder constantly got time off. Granted, much of this time off was spent in prayer and fasting and at Mass, but it was still time they weren't required to work.
I'm in a devised theater piece about two servants in a French countryside estate that are keeping the Mona Lisa out of the hands of Nazis. I play one of the servants but I don't know a lot about the period to make a good backstory. It takes place around 1942. What was France like at the time? What importance did the Mona Lisa have to the French? What was life like for a lower class servant? Information of this nature would be most helpful and appreciated.
The Mona Lisa was a great source of national pride for the French, along with many other pieces in the Louvre that were moved before the occupation of Paris.
bump for a neat thread
>>893338
>>893342
thanks anons. I guess I can bump the thread with more information about the show. It's a silent clown show that gets progressively more absurd until the Nazis and servants have a dance off to the music of popular dance offs in film. In a way we're trying to create art that Hitler would have labeled degenerate and we're drawing heavily from Dada stuff. Other influences include Buster Keaton and the like
Daily reminder that if you don't understand the philosophy of history, you'll never interpret events correctly.
Reminder that you should never read Hegel's Philosophy of History without understanding his Phenomenology first.
>>893054
"Philosophy" of History is nonsense.
>>893090
*tips fedora*
If the Universe is the sum total of all things, does the idea of nothing exist? I'm not a religious person but when most people who say you experience nothing when dead isn't that just a unfalsifiable claim much like wether there is or isn't a god? The idea of nothing doesn't exist because we haven't experienced it, nothing is just a made up idea. For there to be nothing it cannot be described, can't have colour,shape,time, space and so on. So what is most likely to happen when you die? If not nothing?
>>893005
Consider that nothingness could potentially have been experienced by those who are dead.
Unfortunately, we can't talk to dead people.
>>893005
>If the Universe is the sum total of all things, does the idea of nothing exist
Only metaphorically. What you are saying has been put forth by the Greek Monosts thousands of years ago. Today we know empirically that true vacuums do not exist.
So you can say "there is nothing the pot" and it makes sense because by nothing you are just mean nothing visible the the naked eye. This has the interesting consequence of making it so the universe is eternal, since a universe that is not eternal would have to involve a "nothing" either at the start or end.
>>893027
Dead is a just a state of being where the material of the body is in decay. Or if you want to get into spirtual stuff their "soul" has moved to another realm. In either case there is no "nothing" because the matter still exists and the other realm would not be "nothing".
Death is ultimately a human word to describe the particular state of some items.
>>893027
That's why I'm asking if there is no way to prove it how can be be sure it exist or that we can experience it. It's about as convincing as heaven or hell.
Some argue that Tricky Dick was the greatest president of all time.
He wasn't the greatest, though he was underrated
>>892957
He's my personal favorite, definitely the smartest in the past 50 years.
>>892965
Some argue he was the greatest of all time, however.
