Is consciousness truly continuous? Do we "die" every time we go to sleep?
>>1381139
>Do we "die" every time we go to sleep?
If by that, you mean lose consciousness, yes.
>>1381159
No. I mean subjectively 'die', and never wake. As in, the person who wakes up is not 'me'.
>>1381167
No, we don't die.
The Greeks and Romans were very self contained about their sexuality.
Eh, he might be right depending on the time and place.
Homeric Greeks and Late Romans were very chaste
wilhelm reich
Some of them were.
Rome at its best was ruled by an elite that followed Stoicism. Greek philosophers in general were not very hedonistic.
But he is wrong about the Barbarians. Some of them were actually praised by contemporary Roman writers for their chastity.
Should taxation always come with representation?
Not necessarily.
Taxation is a membership fee for living and/or making money within a nation state. While it is preferable that all members have some say in negotiating this fee, it is sufficient that they simply be allowed to leave if they want. The fact that I can't haggle when buying bread at the supermarket does not make its price "theft," since I can just not buy it.
>>1379825
It would have been extremely difficult for the colonists to have a say in British parliament and whatnot because of the distance.
Breaking away from England was a mistake and done for the wrong reasons.
Most Brits paid higher taxes and still had no representation.
America can go fug itself
Did this guy really have a high-pitched, whiny voice or is it just the audio recording technology back then that made him sound like it ?
https://youtube.com/#/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec
>>1379488
Oratory style fad. Recordings of Hitler talking normally sounds surprisingly normal.
>>1379624
>Recordings of Hitler talking normally
You mean that only recording ? He was probably forcing himself not to sound like a little bitch desu
how great is the percentage of philosophy professors that actually contribute original arguments and ideas to the discourse ?
im not talking about historical reinterpretation of some ancient text, rehashed introductions to philosophy or even advanced textbooks im talking about new contributions to contemporary discussion of philosophical questions
please tell me if my question is legitimate
>>1379294
First of all introductions to philosophy have value and they have to be adjusted as time goes on and trends change.
Second of all, they all publish articles and books etc..
And of course, like in any field most are just average while a few are groundbreaking.
Reinterpreting older texts is how philosophical writing works because your arguments nees to be linked with previous writings on the subject.
You cant just start writing shit as if you invented the whole of philosophy.
All "important" philosophers reinterpret older works or reinterpret arguments fomr older works at one point or another.
>>1379294
Criticizing the academic process of tenure-seeking with bullshit papers is valid but you have to understand that it's a problem in literally every field, even the hard sciences. One thing about philosophy it seems, and some thinkers like Schopenhauer have pointed this out, is that you don't need to be knee-deep in a university to publish something influential.
So when you have kooky outsiders like Zizek who don't spend much time in a traditional academic environment it can make the folks in academia look bad.
What are some widely praised historic people who are famous for some good thing, but also held opinions/did things that are today considered strongly politically incorrect on the side?
Richard Wagner (composer) for example was a strong antisemite, and John Ruskin (social thinker, art critic) was a pedophile.
Sartre and Beauvoir also did some morally questionable lewd things, like coercing and manipulating underaged students to sleep with Sartre and then laughed behind their backs.
Gas the sandniggers
also
> I´m pretty satisfied with my views on India and I don´t need them disturbed by no bloody indian
>>1379237
Probably everyone. This is why judging every detail of the lives of past figures by modern moral standards is idiotic
>>1379247
>Probably everyone.
Darwin seemed like a descent fellow. Change everyone with the majority and I agree.
Voltaire stands out for me since he supposedly preached values while at the same time saying racist stuff that contradicted those. Please correct me if wrong, don't wanna check if true.
>when you realize that you are wrong, but you are too invested in the argument to admit it and instead start throwing random insults
How do I defeat this demon?
>>1378895
You stop posting and do something enjoyable instead.
>>1378895
Don't take yourself too seriously.
>>1378895
Just stop replying and don't visit the thread again. At least that's what I do.
Oh, you can also post smug anime girls
What happened to the White American dialect of the 1930s-1960s? How did it transform into ghettospeak by most white middle/poor class whites in such a short period of time? Is it still alive in any areas today, and if so is there a chance of modern revival?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lxNXtjGY_Us
Another example
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6egm4SNGLbY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kgnh4neVaY
Happiness happened. We have become a happy miserable world.
>>1378804
You mistake the image being portrayed by the reality. There have been shifts but nothing nearly as radical as you state.
In what way did humans deal with violence? WAs it about simply working towards the creation of bigger and bigger groups covering more and more people? and through this process sort of subsuming different ideas and cultures and forcing them to compromise by force or through argumentation?
Were the two great wars the final relief of tension towards the creation of global community?
>WAs
>>1378799
>WAs
>>1378800
>WAs
What made WW1 more depressing and bleak when compared to every other war?
Is it because there really was no point and was all just mindless violence and blood-shed?
>>1378619
War was always brutal, now the upper and middle classes, who could write were sent to war.
>>1378647
Upper and middle classes always went to war. Leave your kindergarten class politics out of this.
>>1378619
trench warfare and all of it's horrors(skin literally slipping off your foot if you kept your boots on for too long).
Massive casualties and death more indiscriminate and industrial in scope(great soldier? oops, he just got killed or horribly maimed by a round or machine gun bullet. Next!).
disturbing weapons(poison gas, machine gun)
War more ideological.
Post /art/
>>1379473
At first glance I thought that was a row of Mosins being worshipped
I wanna keep it
>>1378277
Prod it.
>>1378277
Call to the police.
Century old explosives are really dangerous.
>>1378277
There's no explosive in there, at least not in the sense of the actual artillery shell. If anything ever happened it would just make sparks. You're fine.
Intellectuals have had a big hateboner for Aristotle since the 17th century, but has there ever been a thinker who contributed more to western thinking and the fundamentals of science? And his works continue to be relevant in many fields.
> but has there ever been a thinker who contributed more to western thinking and the fundamentals of science?
Bacon, Hume, Popper
>his works continue to be relevant
lol
>>1378269
Dear anon, here is a thought experiment: without this Aristotle how much thinking and fundamentals of science would not be as it is today.
I think the contribution to Western thinking is more integrated into our culture psyche as it is to science from this man Aristotle.
>>1378291
All respond explicitly to his work. Without Aristotle there would be no enlightenment because there would be no theory so comprehensive and compelling to merit such a response.
The earliest specimens to be found of the genus homo were found in Ethiopia and are about 3,000,000 years old. The earliest specimens to be found of homo sapiens specifically were also found in Ethiopia and are about 200,000 years old. The scientific consensus is that homo erectus found its way out of Ethiopia and into Europe via Egypt and possibly through Yemen.
Tldr: We are all basically Ethiopians. That's our home. When thinking about this and how recently we actually left, don't you feel the urge to go visit? Not to see what is actually there primarily, but to imagine what was?
>>1378249
Haha, great post.
Well memed, friend.
>>1378247
Cool story, bro.
>>1378255
You left yourself wide open. But to answer your question, I wouldn't waste my time visiting a place just to imagine what was there.
The meaning of life is death. We are only alive so we can die.
.t KoRn
>>1378054
danger and play is what women are and want [they want play = safe danger] and men want women, but only because women are the ultimate danger and play thing, so that when they believe to have dominated women, they feel valued. This is nice, but you can reach a life beyond this.
once you understand that men are not meant to be as good hedonist as women, you first acknowledge the superiority of women at the hedonistic life (which is just called life by men and women) and you see the misery of hedonism, either the direct hedonism of the woman, or the nihilistic fantasy of the delayed hedonism [hedonism of the will] of the man [the one that men advocate for, the one about engaging yourself into challenges after challenges, seeking merit, pursuing your passions, in one word still clinging to entertainment (typically to attract women sooner or later) to better turn away from their impotency at the hedonistic life..] created by men once they get beat by women.
Once you see the game as well as the noneffective masculine life, you lose faith in hedonism. At this point, you either see the solution or not {Nietzsche did not see it, or rather he did not claim explicitly that he saw it]: you strive to do the exact opposite of hedonism (either the masculine one or the feminine one): first you stop being nihilistic, in accepting what you are (it is crucial to be sincere about the starting point], meaning a worm, and in stopping to analyze the past to get a better future (= the strategy of men, which remains inside hedonism (even though they claim that it is not, and in practice is is clearly not), but even more nihilistic than the feminine hedonism, once they are beaten by women] and in stopping to take what you desire, feel and think seriously [=the hedonism of the woman, and the fueling of this hedonism by men].
>>1378056
Women are wrong for having faith in what they desire, in thinking that this is relevant to ones life
they are a bit wrong to let men spend their life trying to serve women.
Men are wrong to try to play with women, which is just serving women
men are wrong, after being defeated, to be resentful towards women
men are wrong to think, after being defeated, that the solution is to be even more nihilistic than women in dwelling in hedonism of the will
The lack of efficacy of the masculine life leads to a narcissism (contrary to men), but without egotism (contrary to women), a more equanimous and benevolent stance towards what is desired, felt and thought. At this point, you stop looking at hedonism of the body [=the feminine hedonism], turn towards hedonism of the soul [what religious call it], spirit, consciousness [what buddhists call it] [=the hedonism of the mild ascetic, the hedonism that most men fail to see and the one that women love to think that they embody (women love to think that they are not as egotistic as they are, that they embody a humanist stance)] and then you understand that even this is doomed to be disappointing, so you refuse it until you stop caring about this one too.
