Teach me about nudity, /his/.
Was it ever acceptable?
Where does the moralfaggotry about it come from?
>>1236424
>waifu
You are a cuckold.
>>1236438
You're only a cuckold if it's a fetish.
There's literally nothing wrong with adultery.
Societal norms
Why does Belgium exist?
>>1236256
eternal Anglo
They're frenchfaggots who are having an eternal existential crisis on whether or not they're also dutchfaggots or germanfaggots
Can't we just split that meme country and share it between the dutch and french?
How did the Chinese perceive Europeans and Middle Easterners?
>>1235029
Persian/Kushan/etc = trade area/rich kingdoms of the west
Romans = Great empire of the west
India = Religious but powerful kingdom of the southwest
(cardinal direction) Barbarians.
>>1235040
This, they had some idea of Rome and they liked them.
Who was worst, and who changed things for the better.
>At least he built highways
Reasoning is appreciated.
>>1234900
Stalin industrialized a really shitty country and turned it into the #2 world power
Hitler apparently had a pretty decent run 1933-1939 although he left his country in tatters
Mao didnt do anything good post 1949
>>1234949
Mao never did anything good, you might as well put a yellow dog up with the other two dictators. He needs his own JUST image collage with other fuck ups
Stalin is the best: won the fucking war.
Has philosophy REALLY come up with new ideas?
Reading work after work I think it's just intellectual circle-jerking stating the obvious, telling things most people would have thought on their own anyways. Camus "The absurdity of life", Epicurus "just don't be in pain lol", Sartre "aspire things that feel meaningful to you".
Don't get me wrong: having someone put these thoughts into writing is a good thing. But do philosopher's actually PRODUCE new thoughts?
Or do I just think this way because, well, these philosopher's did come up with it.
But when was the last time a philosopher said something truly revolutionizing?
Seems to me art does a better job at creating new thoughts and feelings in people.
>>1232981
>stating the obvious, telling things most people would have thought on their own anyways
So is mathematics, you insufferable pleb.
Philosophers do not have any way to reason better than regular people. See the Munchhausen trilemma. Everything follows the axiom deduction method. There are infinitely many unfalsifiable things you can say but only philosophers good enough at marketing themselves become famous.
Nietzche is an edgy Rorschach test for pseudo intellectuals. Plato made the incredible discovery that definitions exist. Aristotle talked shit.
Why, when Hume pointed out the is ought problem, do philosophers insist that they can derive any insight in to ethics? Because they're charlatans.
Listen to Zizek talk about his political views. 40 years of Hegel studying and all he can say is "I like this so the government should do it ." The same as a regular person
> But when was the last time a philosopher said something truly revolutionizing
Philoshopie changed the old times a lot, see neo platonism as exemple.
> seems to me art does a better job at creating new thoughts and feelings in people.
Not the goal of philosophie
tfw most trinitarians are really binitarians
>>1225982
That's wrong you fucking idiot.
>Holy Spirit doesn't exist
Why are you arguing something you had no faith in?
Again, Wholes which are Wholes combine to make a Whole.
God is Triune.
That's literally it.
I don't see what's so hard to grasp.
>>1226001
It's OP's lack of faith that makes him blind to it.
Does science have a sexist problem?
Science is an a-moral methodology.
Yes.
Pic related. Look at that fascist
>>1239941
Plenty of male scientists push hard on the autism scale, and hence do not do well with coorporating with women
In my opinion, Protestants missed the entire point of Christianity and their religion has been turning steadily worse since the Reformation.
It's plain that Catholicism has served as a great unitive force in western civilization. When Constantine gave his support to the early Christians, he saw an opportunity to bring the whole Empire under a faith that most would find acceptable - and history has certainly proved the wisdom of that decision. For more than a thousand years, the Church was an intellectual giant, seamlessly integrating greek philosophy and learning into their own system. One need only look at the medieval universities to see how much logic and Aristotelian thinking was a central part of theology. Missionary movements were very successful in bringing western values to pagan lands - in many cases Bible translations were first developed pieces of writing in a region, and the veneration of saints eased the transition from polytheism. The Church Councils served as definitive judgments in religious disagreements and were able to preserve unity amid countless heresies and interpretations that could have divided Christendom even more.
Reformation theology is a critique to almost everything that made Catholicism good and unique as a world religion. Philosophy was denounced and ridiculed as a valid approach. In fact, Luther is one of the most vocal opponents of human intellect and saw it as completely worthless and depraved - modern Protestantism still reaps the "benefits" of this callous anti-intellectualism. With the loss of a central, defining authority the religion loses its cultural role and serves no purpose whatsoever in daily life.
Meanwhile, Catholic universities are still some of the most respected in humanities, there are many notable Catholic thinkers and the Church still serves as a powerful authority in moral matters even for the non-religious, simply because its role in culture is so well established. The fruits of the Reformers are rotten.
Fuck off Rome I'm not paying you indulgences
>Abrahamic religions
Please, there is no worse group of religions to have ever been around.
>>1238407
This is true. You only need to look at Young Earth Creationists in the USA to see how much the Reformation has hurt the entire world.
>Within decades after the capture of Constantinople by Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453, some Eastern Orthodox people were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome", or the "New Rome".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome
Seeying as Constantinople is the successor to Rome and Moscow is the successor to Constantinople, it would appear logical that the Russia Empire was indeed Holy, Roman, and an Empire.
>>1237766
Seeing*
Tsar = Caesar
>equal to the apostles
Let's assume that god exists. Why should we assume that he is good and not evil?
There's no reason that a good god would be any more likely than evil god.
Okay.
>>1237273
For what reason would an evil god create the universe?
>>1237283
Perhaps he isn't abstractly perfect and finds pleasure in subjecting sentient beings to endless suffering?
really makes you think
>>1237054
oh man now that's really deep
>>1237054
He's not wrong, if you're trying to trivialize that idea by make it seem pedestrian or something.
>>1237071
Who is ruling in a democracy?
Are democracies and republics inherently unstable? Monarchies and dictatorships lasted for thousands of years, while democracy at best lasted for about 300.
>>1235963
People like to think that 'the truth will always win' but really if you just say enough bullshit everyone will believe because they can't debunk it fast enough. There's a dialectic need for authoritarianism
>>1235963
collapsing democracy becomes autocracy
collapsing autocracy becomes autocracy
>>1235963
yes.
t. bordiga
Has anyone here done any in depth research on supposedly non-binary gender systems from the Americas, India, and Southeast Asia? Is it accurate to call them significant deviations from the masculine/feminine societal norms in the west? Hijras for example are from what I can tell regarded as freaks who frequently could only survive as prostitutes, yet I've seen them touted as a third gender being normal in other cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_systems#Non-European_gender_systems
Specifically mentioned are the Berdache, Alyha, Juchitan, Machi, Hijra/Sadhin, Travesti, etc. and most of them seem to be on the fringe.
>>1229254
Hijras are not considered normal in India.
I don't research shit that doesn't interest me.
>>1229320
If it doesn't interest you get out of this thread.
Who was the greatest U.S. President in terms of effectiveness, and accomplishing their ideas?
I don't think there will ever be someone who can surpass Washington. He had no party. He chose to leave after two terms. He declared that God and the Bible was to be the basis to rule the nation. He was almost legendary and known throughout the entire world.
George Walker Bush wanted an incentive to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, and he literally downed two of America's most iconic and massive towers, killing over three thousand people, which gave him his incentive to do anything he desired in the Middle-East and surrounding area, and which also made his approval rates skyrocket.
I pick him.
>>1220596
Was he BASED?
British Raj; was it good or bad for India?
depends, are you saying they would be colonized by another great power or would they be a separate nation?
>>1219581
Like assuming Britain stayed out of south asia and left it all to the French, the Dutch and the Portugese
>>1219576
Terrible. Not only was it plagued by famines and massacres, but the economy of India totally stagnated under it. Literally totally stagnated, the growth of the Indian economy under it was only as big as the growth of the Indian population. It also crashed the Rupee.
Even contemporary Brits had to point out what a shitshow British rule in India was occassionally.