Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3766. page

File: genesis.jpg (29KB, 628x409px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 628x409px

Were there edgy artists in Egypt, Rome, etc?

File: Machiavelli_by_Santi_di_Tito.jpg (231KB, 1244x1600px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1244x1600px

Why is it said that Machiavelli created the modern world?

File: 1450225996156.jpg (120KB, 716x768px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 716x768px

Has anyone on this board ever fasted for religious reasons?

File: eliezer_yudkowsky-270x3201[1].jpg (23KB, 270x320px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 270x320px

What do you think of LessWrong and the so-called rationalist community?

File: images.jpg (4KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 225x225px

Was voltaire ever married?

File: image.jpg (57KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x600px

Was the concept of virginity of women important before the abrahamic faiths spread into europe ?

File: z0auawQq[1].jpg (275KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1252x1252px

whats the scoop on this old guy

File: WWImontage.jpg (292KB, 799x828px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 799x828px

How would Europe look if the central powers had won or fought to a draw, would there have been a second world war, rise of the nazi party and cold war and so on?

File: download(0).jpg (5KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 290x174px

>refused to fight in WW1 due to pacifism
>when he was too old to fight in WW2 he conveniently decides that some wars could be worth fighting

I would've refused to fight as well but bare lols that his """""""philosophy""""""" couldn't stand one dose of reality. What a load of worthless pseudo intellectual mental masturbation.

File: Jmaistre.jpg (52KB, 683x899px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 683x899px

>If one goes back to the childhood of nations or if one comes down to our own day, if one looks at societies in every possible stage of development from barbarism to the most advanced civilization, war will always be found.
...
>There is, moreover, good reason for doubting if this violent destruction is in general as great an evil as is believed; at least, it is one of those evils that play a part in an order of things in which everything is violent and against nature and which has its compensations. First, when the human spirit has lost its resilience through indolence, incredulity, and the gangrenous vices that follow an excess of civilization, it can be retempered only in blood. It is far from easy to explain why war produces different effects in different circumstances. What is sufficiently clear is that humanity can be considered as a tree that an invisible hand is continually pruning, often to its benefit. In fact, if its trunk is hacked or if it is pruned badly, a tree can die, but who knows the limits for the human tree? What we do know is that a great deal of bloodshed is often connected with a high population, as has been seen particularly in the ancient Greek republics and in Spain under Arab domination. The platitudes on war mean nothing: no great intelligence is needed to know that the more men killed, the fewer at that moment remain, just as the more branches are cut, the fewer remain on the tree. It is the results of the operation that must be considered. However, to stick to the comparison, the skilled gardener prunes less to ensure growth as such than to ensure the fructification of the tree; he requires fruit, and not wood or leaves from the plant. Now the true fruits of human nature - the arts, sciences, great enterprises, noble ideas, manly virtues - spring above all from the state of war. It is well known that nations reach the apex of the greatness of which they are capable only after long and bloody wars.

Is he right?

File: his meets a.jpg (16KB, 402x405px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 402x405px

How was Latin replaced by Italian in the Italian peninsula?

File: New_Tatoo.jpg (233KB, 1024x1411px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1024x1411px

As opposed to, say, Semite religions like Christianity?

Also how do you like my new tattoo /his/?

File: 339d8-napoleon-bonaparte.jpg (396KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1600x1200px

>"Wellington was a better general than Napoleon, because he beat him. End of story."

File: monkey1.jpg (65KB, 634x875px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 634x875px

How did the discoveries of quantum mechanics change the philosophical conception of metaphysics and ontology?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (79KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1280x720px

What do you make of antinatalism?

Personally I agree with it, and practice antinatalism (I don't, and wont have children).

Human life is fundamentally bad. We are biological machines who must constantly struggle to maintain bodily homeostasis (of warmth, ph, blood pressure, hydration, blood glucose, etc, etc,), and we must also constantly struggle to maintain our mood, which relies on things like self-esteem, social contact, having things to look forward to, etc, etc.

If we don't maintain all these things within a narrow range, we will suffer. Eventually we will die. Even if we maintain perfectly we will eventually die anyway.

Essentially, life involves a perpetual struggle to avoid suffering. What we are rewarded with, for this struggle is not pleasure but rather a state of "not feeling bad". This soon turns into boredom, which must be struggled against. If you want to experience pleasure you must first struggle to maintain homeostasis, and then work to produce pleasure. Pleasure is not guaranteed in life, only suffering. The amount of suffering in life far outweighs the pleasure. Children cannot consent to being born. Non-existence children are not harmed by not being born. Non-existent children are not suffering, which is a good thing. We should leave them with their non-existence. There's no need to disturb them. The prevention of suffering is a far greater concern than the production of pleasure. For example we should give starving people food rather than entertainment, and people would think you're mad for doing the other way round. This should also apply to our thoughts about having children. It is more important to prevent our children from suffering, than it is to have them experience pleasure. Therefore we should not have children at all, because it prevents EVERY experience of suffering that a child would have. And because the child does not exist, they are not harmed by not experiencing pleasure. Because they can't feel deprivation.