"How often do men think of the roman empire?" has become a meme where women are shocked when the ask the men in their lives about how often they think about the roman empire and for a lot of men the answer is "all the time".
Given the "How often do men think of ancient Rome?" meme, some women ask, "Why not ancient China?" but that's really making a lot of assumptions. Just as the collapse of ancient Rome is terribly important today, there are a lot of lessons from ancient China that we can learn from too.
The story of the Song dynasty losing half the country to invasions from the north while they do nothing about it except write poetry in the capital about how much they'd like to get their territory back is a story of decadence and hubris we definitely need to remember. The story of how Imperial China allowed itself to become arrogant and assume it knew everything about the world and even turned away modern firearms and other western inventions is something we must remember because our society today has similar hubris and arrogance.
There are lessons from all around the world I think men want to learn, and they are thankful that someone wrote them down so we could learn them. Rome was a more Western empire, in Europe, and Britain and America both borrowed heavily from them in many ways to build their empires, so it's of particular importance and interest, but not sole interest by any means.
The story of the Song dynasty losing half the country to invasions from the north while they do nothing about it except write poetry in the capital about how much they'd like to get their territory back is a story of decadence and hubris we definitely need to remember. The story of how Imperial China allowed itself to become arrogant and assume it knew everything about the world and even turned away modern firearms and other western inventions is something we must remember because our society today has similar hubris and arrogance.
There are lessons from all around the world I think men want to learn, and they are thankful that someone wrote them down so we could learn them. Rome was a more Western empire, in Europe, and Britain and America both borrowed heavily from them in many ways to build their empires, so it's of particular importance and interest, but not sole interest by any means.
Heroism is a complicated subject.
What is a hero? I think it can be complicated because one person's hero is another person's villain.
Many people don't consider religiously motivated suicide bombers heroes, but they are practicing extreme self-sacrifice, attacking their problems head on, and while we might not agree with their morals they're being quite pure in practicing them.
Its like...
Fighting for a cause they think is right that I agree is right,
Self-Sacrificing for the greater good,
Using tactics I generally agree with,
And particularly if they're not personally going to benefit massively from winning...
That said, I dont live in an entirely morally relativistic world. Some values are universally held by human beings. Throughout history there have been times where your hero is going up against their hero, but even though you are in opposition, there's a mutual respect because although they are your adversary, they are nonetheless heroic. We are humans first, after all and there are commonalities between us. That's one reason why stories from all around the world can be told, and although they may not have the exact same impact often those stories can resonate with people from much different cultures.
If you spoke with world war 2 veterans, often it would surprise you to see that allied soldiers didn't hate the axis soldiers. They just saw the guys on the other side of the trench as other people doing their job. I recall that a lot of soldiers on the allied front respected Rommel despite him being axis because he did behave in a grounded fashion. On the other hand, both sides of the war saw Soviet soldiers in a negative light despite the sacrifices and moral certitude because they did some atrocious things despite being part of the "good guys"
What is a hero? I think it can be complicated because one person's hero is another person's villain.
Many people don't consider religiously motivated suicide bombers heroes, but they are practicing extreme self-sacrifice, attacking their problems head on, and while we might not agree with their morals they're being quite pure in practicing them.
Its like...
Fighting for a cause they think is right that I agree is right,
Self-Sacrificing for the greater good,
Using tactics I generally agree with,
And particularly if they're not personally going to benefit massively from winning...
That said, I dont live in an entirely morally relativistic world. Some values are universally held by human beings. Throughout history there have been times where your hero is going up against their hero, but even though you are in opposition, there's a mutual respect because although they are your adversary, they are nonetheless heroic. We are humans first, after all and there are commonalities between us. That's one reason why stories from all around the world can be told, and although they may not have the exact same impact often those stories can resonate with people from much different cultures.
If you spoke with world war 2 veterans, often it would surprise you to see that allied soldiers didn't hate the axis soldiers. They just saw the guys on the other side of the trench as other people doing their job. I recall that a lot of soldiers on the allied front respected Rommel despite him being axis because he did behave in a grounded fashion. On the other hand, both sides of the war saw Soviet soldiers in a negative light despite the sacrifices and moral certitude because they did some atrocious things despite being part of the "good guys"
According to adult websites, I've been 18+ since I was 12. If you just need to check a box to get access to a resource, of course lots of people will just check the box.
The fact that this is a tribal issue shows how pliable people are. Really, everyone should know enough history to know that "their guys" aren't in power forever, and it's only a matter of time until the censorship they think is right and just will be replaced with censorship they find wrong and evil, so we should strive to not encourage government censorship period.
I've lately been comparing it to one of muramasa's swords, which once removed from its scabbard must taste blood before being returned; You better hope there's someone you want cut in the room, because otherwise you're gonna get hurt.
The left complained for decades about things like McCarthyism and Hollywood blacklists, but today we see the opposite, with conservatives being blacklisted in modern Hollywood. Once the pendulum swings once again, what moral right will there be to complain about the next round of McCarthyism?
I've lately been comparing it to one of muramasa's swords, which once removed from its scabbard must taste blood before being returned; You better hope there's someone you want cut in the room, because otherwise you're gonna get hurt.
The left complained for decades about things like McCarthyism and Hollywood blacklists, but today we see the opposite, with conservatives being blacklisted in modern Hollywood. Once the pendulum swings once again, what moral right will there be to complain about the next round of McCarthyism?
I hurt myself today
To play final fantasy 3
I focused on the game
The only thing that's real...
To play final fantasy 3
I focused on the game
The only thing that's real...
The tactic at work is a famous one in sleazy sales tactics. False urgency. "Act now or miss this limited time offer!"
Dishonesty is the death knell of any given movement. Its the beginning of the end.
Dishonesty is the death knell of any given movement. Its the beginning of the end.
You're not wrong. The men of my family has had a tradition for several generations of going on a "walz" in the sense of the german tradesman from the 17th century. It's because in order to start our lives, we have to go where the opportunities are, and perhaps with luck we'll get to come back home once we've build something of our lives. If there was enough opportunity right here we wouldn't have to go on a walz.
I just finished reading "Notes from the underground". The last thing he does in the book does align with the first things he said in his book, that he's a terrible person and that he would destroy paradise just to have something interesting happen. Sort of a sad ending. I guess though that it wouldn't be russian literature if it had a happy ending.
It's sad, but I feel like I can see a postmodern man in the underground man. Filled with a paradoxical self-loathing and self-aggrandizement, and filled with post-hoc rationalizations for bad behavior. I know people like him, and I think it's some disconnect from our human nature that would result in such a toxicity. Although our current world isn't perfect, one can easily live better than kings of old, and worry about nothing but the propagation of the species and eating cakes, but it isn't what makes men happy. On the other hand, just like the underground man, once a vindication might approach, such postmodern men will talk themselves out of it.
I feel like maybe there's something of a theme I've written about before elsewhere, the difference between natural gifts and earned accomplishments. The Underground man is highly intelligent, very well read, but lacks wisdom. That's why he must be miserable, because ultimately without wisdom intelligence is pure potential. Just like uncontrolled energy it can do things that are beneficial but equally it can do things that are harmful.
In the same way, postmodern man is the most intelligent in the history of the world. The best fed, the best raised, the most well-read (though not through books but through the omnipresent media in front of us such as television or the Internet), and their mothers took care of them in the womb the best knowing what will and will not harm them. But that unbridled potential can be used to justify anything, good or evil. Without wisdom to guide them...
Postmodernism can be a useful philosophy, but not by itself. By itself, it looks at wisdom and claims it can't be real because nothing is real, particularly if it's something our minds. You can look at the lessons of the past and just say "no, those ancestors of ours weren't so wise, they didn't even have postmodernism!" I think that poses a key difference between the underground man and postmodern man. The former lacks wisdom, but the latter can actively reject it as a core tenet of his philosophy. The former may someday find wisdom, the latter will go out of their way to avoid it.
It's sad, but I feel like I can see a postmodern man in the underground man. Filled with a paradoxical self-loathing and self-aggrandizement, and filled with post-hoc rationalizations for bad behavior. I know people like him, and I think it's some disconnect from our human nature that would result in such a toxicity. Although our current world isn't perfect, one can easily live better than kings of old, and worry about nothing but the propagation of the species and eating cakes, but it isn't what makes men happy. On the other hand, just like the underground man, once a vindication might approach, such postmodern men will talk themselves out of it.
I feel like maybe there's something of a theme I've written about before elsewhere, the difference between natural gifts and earned accomplishments. The Underground man is highly intelligent, very well read, but lacks wisdom. That's why he must be miserable, because ultimately without wisdom intelligence is pure potential. Just like uncontrolled energy it can do things that are beneficial but equally it can do things that are harmful.
In the same way, postmodern man is the most intelligent in the history of the world. The best fed, the best raised, the most well-read (though not through books but through the omnipresent media in front of us such as television or the Internet), and their mothers took care of them in the womb the best knowing what will and will not harm them. But that unbridled potential can be used to justify anything, good or evil. Without wisdom to guide them...
Postmodernism can be a useful philosophy, but not by itself. By itself, it looks at wisdom and claims it can't be real because nothing is real, particularly if it's something our minds. You can look at the lessons of the past and just say "no, those ancestors of ours weren't so wise, they didn't even have postmodernism!" I think that poses a key difference between the underground man and postmodern man. The former lacks wisdom, but the latter can actively reject it as a core tenet of his philosophy. The former may someday find wisdom, the latter will go out of their way to avoid it.
I'm sure there is (I think disney had a series for every property back in the 90s), but no I mean the animated movie.
It seems like anti-natalism is a post-hoc justification for people who are forced by circumstance not to have kids, either because they cant find a good mate or because they live in expensive and crowded cities where the cant justify the time or money expense or dont have the space, or because they have biological reasons they shouldn't or can't.
That being said, today I was reflecting on Richard Dawkins' concept of memetics. People have taken the concept in a vacuum to mean only ideas that can survive do so, but I think that the concept can be expanded to the survival and replication of the beings who have those ideas. Imagine a hypothetical belief that one should immediately kill themselves. Anyone who believes such an idea and puts it into practice will not be around, and their ideas will end with them. Let's take another hypothetical belief that you must do everything you can to survive, reproduce fruitfully, and pass that belief onto your offspring. Of course, such an idea would be more widespread because it was being passed on, but it would also be more widespread because the people with that belief would survive and thrive too.
Although certain ideologies appear to be thriving, they are destined to die out as the people who hold them die out. On long enough time frames, ideas that protect the people who hold them will outcompete ideas that end the bloodlines of anyone who hold them.
That being said, today I was reflecting on Richard Dawkins' concept of memetics. People have taken the concept in a vacuum to mean only ideas that can survive do so, but I think that the concept can be expanded to the survival and replication of the beings who have those ideas. Imagine a hypothetical belief that one should immediately kill themselves. Anyone who believes such an idea and puts it into practice will not be around, and their ideas will end with them. Let's take another hypothetical belief that you must do everything you can to survive, reproduce fruitfully, and pass that belief onto your offspring. Of course, such an idea would be more widespread because it was being passed on, but it would also be more widespread because the people with that belief would survive and thrive too.
Although certain ideologies appear to be thriving, they are destined to die out as the people who hold them die out. On long enough time frames, ideas that protect the people who hold them will outcompete ideas that end the bloodlines of anyone who hold them.
"Hoh, you're approaching me? Instead of running away, you're coming right to me?"
"I can't fuck the shit out of you without getting closer."
"I can't fuck the shit out of you without getting closer."