Has irony replaced christian stoicism as the modern way of life in developed western countries?
Wasn't Socrates the progenitor of irony already?
>>447223
Stoicism was a way of life? When did that happen?
>>447223
>stoicism
>christian
>greek philosophy
go to bed marcy marc
If the South had won the Civl War, would we have sided with the Germans in World War 2?
>>446667
If the darkies didn't get deported, we'd have invited the Union to invade us to suppress endless Black communist uprisings.
Would there even be a WW2? Butterfly effect and all that shit.
>>447019
I think that only applies to time travel. We still would have been feeding England and France our cotton and shit.
Why didn't companies and corporatism and other features of modern capitalism develop in Ancient Rome? Wasn't Rome capitalist?
>Wasn't Rome an economic model that has it's basis in the late 1700's?
No
>>446595
>corporations
What are latifunidas
Also wasn't some amout wheat given for plebs for free? If yes then it's safe to say that rome was pretty nanny state.
Rome had quite a lot of advertising. Both businesses and politicians would graffiti their names on walls and gladiators would even get sponsored by them.
>This post has been brought to you by the Guild of Millers. The Guild of Millers uses only the finest flour; true Roman bread for true Romans.
Anime proven real by philosophy. Checkmate atheists.
Is religion a mental disease, as Dawkins maintains? If so, what is the cure?
>>446538
religion was the founder of our modern day morals
morals are kind of important in a society
>>446538
Atheism is a mental disease, not the other way around. A society without morals will wither and die.
>>446815
Morals and ethics are an illusion of Satan to lead man astray. They foster doubt in the validity and supreme authority of the word of the Lord and His laws. Many philosophers have attempted to use morals and ethics to disprove the Lord's benevolence. Like with science, Satan has enabled this by giving man the illusion he can understand ultimate truth, know more than the Omniscient. But the basis of science and morals and ethics is not knowledge, it is doubt, proving they are the work of Satan. Make no mistake, morals and ethics are humanistic in nature, an imperfect human tainted by sin can not begin to comprehend the thinking of the Creator. To attempt to apply them to the workings of the Divine is folly, morals and ethics do not apply to God. It is hubris to treat God as but a simple man. There is no God but God, concepts of relative fairness do not apply to God, for God has no equals. The only morals and ethics that apply to God are how he he judges all of mankind as the ultimate judge. The concept of morals and ethics are ultimately paradoxical. Man in his imperfection can not determine the ultimate truth and judge between right and wrong. Man putting his own finite thoughts ahead of the thoughts of infinite knowledge is beyond pointless. It is man saying he is superior to God. People enter conflict because of differing morals and ethics, a Satanic plot to divide and plant the seeds of doubt. Philosophers are Satanically inspired, they think because they doubt, not because they know. Only He who is perfect and omniscient can knows truth in its entirety, and the only being capable of judging what is good and evil. You can not judge God by the standards of man, you can not judge the word of God or the law of God, to do so is to presume dominion over God, the Creator of all. You, as man, need only know the absolute Truth of God, you, the imperfect being, can not comprehend nor understand God, the perfect being, you can only know God. God is the Truth.
How true is the idea that religion killed lots of people and was the cause of many wars throughout History?
I mean, of course people belonging to different religions have fought and the main narrative may have contained an element of religious difference, but it's not like people actually went to war over theological disputes. I believe that before the Enlightenment religion simply provided the main framework through which we could interpret the world and shape society, so people containing diverging political ideologies (as we'd call them now) articulated them through religion.
So basically, if you take liberals v. conservatives in today's vocabulary and placed them in a time where religious bonds were the main source of cohesion among a people, politicians would be saying that God either approves or condemns welfare, immigration, and all the other issues they fight over. Soon you'd have two different "religions" at conflict even though that would have no qualitative difference from what we do today.
>>446536
Religion is just an excuse.
>>446536
> How true is the idea that religion killed lots of people and was the cause of many wars throughout History?
Not true at all, and I basically agree with our statement. Some cultures used religion as a pretext, just like US today brings "democracy" and "freedom" to the world, but the underlying reasons were expansionism and struggle for power and resources.
Then again, there were some conflicts that make little sense without religion, like the first three Crusaders.
The religious kill in the name of their religion.
Making excuses for them doesn't change that fact.
The Frankish Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Caliphate, who was the true heir of Rome? Who had the most influence on the way the world turned out?
Why not everyone?
Is mankind inherently evil? Do the countless examples of brutality, greed and murder throughout history speak louder than objective good?
Who's to say they speak louder than the countless examples of compassion, selflessness and empathy?
>Is mankind inherently evil?
No
>Do the countless examples of brutality, greed and murder throughout history speak louder than objective good?
Which would you remember more, being given a cookie or having your wallet stolen?
"If it bleeds it leads"
Define evil.
Post Ancient Symbols and the meaning behind them.
The deeper the meaning, the better
The Swastika was probably inspired by the rotation of Ursa Major (big dipper) about the star Polaris.
Spirit entering matter
also eternal life
>>446268
I've heard it said that it symbolizes amplification
Are there historical examples of lesser nations nitpicking the great regional powers over asinine shit? I notice this happens a lot now with the US, and I'm wondering if this happened with the lesser polities who lived around the time of the Mongols, the Romans, the Aztecs, etc.
Some examples:
>Why is atheism so weird in Rome? I worship Jupiter, but I'm just wondering.
>Those stupid Romans. Why do they eat their bread this way?
>Can you believe the manner in which those dumb Mongols braid their hair? lel they're so gay for it.
I think some historical examples of this would be pretty amusing.
>Can you believe how dumb the Mongols are for losing to a bunch of peasants in Hungary? lel nice "empire" you got there Genghis
literally always. Its not even just confined to states and nations, this is a human behavior that comes from a very primal form of humaness
>>446101
That's interesting. I subscribe to the theory that there's nothing new under the sun. I'm hoping someone can contribute examples from old writings or inscriptions.
This is a potato plant, there are two ways to make more of these plants. You can extract the seeds from it's fruit and plant them, growing more potato plants or you can take a potato, cut into sections which have an eye and plant them.
The former method matures more slowly than the latter method, but as a rule one should avoid growing potato plants from slices of potatoes. Said new potato plants are clones of the original and if a sufficient number of clones are propagated in an area this means a disaster could occur in which a type of bacteria or fungus evolves which is ideally suited to bypass said potato plant's immune system and spreading like wildfire among other plants.
>>445998
Thank you for this information OP.
The English, why?
Does there, in truth, exist a "right side of history"?
Only temporarily. What's considered the wrong side historically may just as well be seen as the right side in a century or two.
No. Right and wrong don't exist, morality is a social cosntruct.
The "right side of history" is just a battle cry used by moral fascists to convince everyone that their cultural victory is inevitable. I call it a battle cry because it's only ever used to condemn others or reassure their own that they are correct.
Today I had my Latin American history final, went all the way from Columbus voyage up until the Falklands War, it was more focused on the southern cone but also focused heavily on american interventions in central america.
Anyone would like to discuss a topic?
Are US interventions in Latin America a form of Imperialism?
>>445711
Most were but there were other interests at play many times. For example you have the Venezuelan Blockade of 1903 which led to the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904.
Since the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 the US mantained the position that european interference in the Americas could lead to a new wave of colonialism and the US couldn't accept that. By the late 18th century though there were extensive european investment in Latin America. When Venezuela refused to pay a large loan to Britain, Germany and Italy in 1902, these countries sent their navy and blocked the Venezuelan ports. America then entered as mediator and the europeans accepter to lift the blockade with the american promise that Venezuela would pay back the loans.
This led Roosevelt to realize that many latin american countries contracting debt they could not pay later could endanger the whole continent security.
After the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 America decided that they will intervene in the finances of latin american countries to avoid them getting loans they couldn't repay, so no european navies had a reason to put the continent's security at risk.
Thoughts/anecdotes on the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Conflicts?
>>445637
Stop
good thread
>>445637
But that's a smoke grenade launcher.
https://youtu.be/07zayhBzujU
Personally, i love the shit out of it, but I'm a Yankee.
It's possibly the comfiest history documentary of all time, from the music, to the smooth timbre of Shelby Foote's voice.
But i hear some Southerners don't like it. Also how can the south be proud of the war when men from places like Connecticut, New Jersey or Delaware BTFO'd Texas or Alabama.
What do you think /his/? The Civil War, Yankee propaganda or the truth?
really enjoying it and im not even a civil war buff
>>445662
the Ken Burns documentaries on Prohibition and the Shakers are also really good.
>>445612
It's alright
I basically ignore anything that one black woman says. Shelby Foote is fucking gold.
The film tends to portray Northerners as being justified, and it tends to portray the South in a somewhat harsh light, but it does attempt to be fair to both sides.
Personally I just recommend Foote's Civil War to people though, it's basically a book form of the documentary with more objectivity and detail.
![18coverart-img-blog427[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AioGsLA.jpg "18coverart-img-blog427[1]")
