|
Keldoclock posted:
Plus ca change, plus des pommes frites.
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Plus ca change, plus des pommes frites. Quick, get the cabbages! He's talking in tongues!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Street food existed before Ray Croc founded McDonalds in 1955, yes I never said it didn't? I was saying that the Romans are the first people we know of who had it to the extent that it was an industry, if that makes sense. Actual buildings devoted to serving food quickly, vs average Joe Plebe and his fish cart. I'm sure you'd find similar establishments in Chinese cities at the time, actually, but I've never seen any records of that.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:It doesn't seem so insane to me to think that the idea that there could have been a time where people didn't have the idea that there could be a "self" or "mind" distinct from their bodies, but also didn't have any insight into physiology or chemistry. Our ancestors probably got our consciousness hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, not just his three thousand. That's insanely short. So that part of the idea works, that guy just left out a couple zeros. Also that process was probably really slow and worked on a sliding scale with a smart animal on one side and a human on the other side. This is common knowledge today and not actually his idea alone, which is practically "3000 years ago magic happened". V. Illych L. posted:dualism and spiritualism are really tied up with mystery cults between epicurus and descartes, so i don't think there's much of a stretch to say that people back in the day conceived of the individual and consciousness in a very different way from us The thing is, mystery cults still exist today, so you could argue people back then were the same as today.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
If consciousness is a genetic trait developed 3,000 years ago wouldn't we still see the occasional people born today without it? also how did it reach the americas, polynesia, etc. If it's not genetic how is it linked to schizophrenia?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Yeah it's a dumb idea. All animals are conscious, and humans achieved sapience at least 100,000-200,000 years ago (i.e. the advent of homo sapiens, or anatomically-modern humans) and probably earlier (homo erectus and its multiple subspecies [which include neanderthals] were tool-using hunter gatherers that practiced ceremonial burial, cared for the sick and the weak, and developed other forms of cultural complexity, and were living in and around Africa 1.5 to 2 million years ago). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:
I'm about 90% sure this is a safeway
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I'm about 90% sure this is a safeway It's a Signature Cafe, you can read the logo if you ZOOM/ENHANCE on the $7.99 chicken sign at the top.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I'm sure you'd find similar establishments in Chinese cities at the time, actually, but I've never seen any records of that. Very interesting? Where did the people of antiquity go to relax, unwind, and hit on chicks? I know that restaurants as we know them are a 19th century invention... But the rest of you guys  My point was that a inset counter with hot food and some cold food on the side is a pretty useful tool for serving a small variety of food to a lot of people quickly, and we're still using it. I did go back and fix the image.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Very interesting? Where did the people of antiquity go to relax, unwind, and hit on chicks? The bathhouse, except for the hit on chicks part. For Romans. There was also the chariot races--I have no idea if there were a lot of women there or if the seats were gender-segregated or anything. If anyone else knows, speak up. Then there's that whole 'forum' thing. There was also the theater, I'm not sure how class-segregated that was, especially in a place like the Theater of Pompey
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
IIRC, the Colosseum had all the women crammed into some subprime seating.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Yes. Patricians closest to the action, equestrians next, plebeians in the furthest seats. Women, slaves, and foreigners were in the standing room only at the top of the arena.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yes. Patricians closest to the action, equestrians next, plebeians in the furthest seats. Women, slaves, and foreigners were in the standing room only at the top of the arena. So you couldn't take your foreign friends to watch the game? Or invite a pretty girl to sit in the equestrian seats with you? Fascinating. What do we know about ancient Chinese teahouses? I'm talking like, 800AD.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yes. Patricians closest to the action, equestrians next, plebeians in the furthest seats. Women, slaves, and foreigners were in the standing room only at the top of the arena. Just to make sure, this is a well known thing right? I mean, we have records stating this specifically? Along with possibly paintings, or mosaic or that sort of art? Its funny how literally every show and movies who claim to have consulted historians will show woman spread out in the crowd. Either the historians didn't tell them about this, or they choose to discard this in the name of equality or something. Funny story, back in 2nd grade of high school, our history teacher (who also happened to be a feminist) asked us to put roman people on a ladder according to their place in society. She got so drat pissed when she saw that I put slaves at the bottom rung of the ladder, and woman on the ground. But to be fair, that is exactly how it was depicted in the history book provided by the school. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
It's what I learned in my Roman entertainment course, found this here with the Latin names of the sections: http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/colosseum/seating-at-the-colosseum.htm This does not cite its sources unfortunately so I'm not sure where we get the information from. It also suggests patrician women would be in the patrician section rather than the general women's section at the back. That seems reasonable to me. Women weren't exactly considered people by the Romans but the social class overriding that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
Yeah, you don't want the patrician women standing up their with big-dicked slaves and suave foreigners. That ain't Roman.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yeah, you don't want the patrician women standing up their with big-dicked slaves and suave foreigners. That ain't Roman. That's so Roman.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Im pretty sure a patricians slaves would be in the patrician section to if their master was there. I mean how else will they get wine and grapes into their mouths? I imagine it works somewhat like today. If you're Jonny bigshot and have a cool box somewhere you can bring your wife, kids, maid, friends whoever the gently caress you want with you but if your maid wants to go on her own the fact she is your maid means jack poo poo and she can queue up with the rest of the plebs.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yeah, you don't want the patrician women standing up their with big-dicked slaves and suave foreigners. That ain't Roman. Gol-dang furreners stealin' our wimmenfolk what we stole from the Sabines in the fust place! 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Very interesting? Where did the people of antiquity go to relax, unwind, and hit on chicks? I know that restaurants as we know them are a 19th century invention... It varied a lot by culture and really only started to matter in terms of specific places as you got into urban living. Smaller level cultures, who didn't get into full city life wouldn't really need that level of specialisation, everyone would just hang out at the Chief's hut or I guess some local natural spots much as we do today. In feudal Europe most of that would have been covered by feasting in Halls for the nobles and drinking in taverns for the lower classes or just at work in the fields. I imagine many places outside of the Middle East/Anatolia post Roman era would have been similar simply because the village level of organising things continues to work pretty well until you're getting up to actual city type sizes and the traditions in that part of the world tended to share similar cultural roots. China had teahouses and restaurant style places that sound broadly similar to a European tavern but quieter with more emphasis on food and relaxing that drinking and whoring (though they definitely had plenty of whoring too). I have absolutely no idea what American city states would have looked like for relaxing though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Where would common people go/get for a snack after a night of drinking?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Where would common people go/get for a snack after a night of drinking? Just spitballing here (I doubt there are sources on things like that) but probably just Quintus's Discount Mystery Meat Stand. If they had fast food places, it stands to reason that some would be open at night. After all, it's a universal law of economics that drunk people will pay good money for terrible food, and the Romans were nothing if not pragmatic.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
I was under the impression that Rome was, like most pre-modern cities, pretty loving dangerous at night for anyone not in a largeish and probably somewhat organised group. Late night drinking was done at home, where I'd guess you'd have some bread and olives around. I don't think the Romans really went in for tavern type drinking anyway so if you're already at home, where else would you get food?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
In large part it was dangerous because it was super dark and you could easily trip on poo poo/run into things. Not much in the way of lighting.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In large part it was dangerous because it was super dark and you could easily trip on poo poo/run into things. Not much in the way of lighting. Yeah, I think a lot of people forget just how loving dark nighttime is. I was on a train after sunset recently (obviously when you're in a car or something, you have the light of your own headlights and those of others), and it really hit me: outside of urban areas, there's NOTHING unless the moon is visible. There isn't a point of light, you can't see silhouettes of things, it's just blackness. We're pretty lucky that we can do things before and after sunset without a second thought, but that wasn't an option for most of human history.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
It was pretty much a social expectation that Romans would have their friends round for dinner pretty much all the time, to the point that there are jokes about creepy old Sextus trolling the baths for someone to go have dinner with. I'm just spitballing but I imagine people would go out drinking after and stick together for protection on the 90% lawless night time streets. Roman pre-drinks? E: The city is almost pitch black, there's no police, and no guards unless you're on the Palatine or something. There's definitely no shortage of desperate, hungry people, and unemployment is often high. Your average person's security would probably come from patronage, even if it was just Quintus getting everyone together to go teach those loving fucks a loving lesson. But a random guy in a dark alley probably isn't going to check who you make bricks for first... Strategic Tea fucked around with this message at 21:46 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Detracting from Ancient McDonalds I came across this amusing list of Christian Heresy's some of the old ones are kinda wait what? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies "Wikipedia" posted:Luciferism - Strongly anti-Arian sect in Sardinia, founded by Lucifer Calaritanus a bishop of Cagliari
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 02:44
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Detracting from Ancient McDonalds I came across this amusing list of Christian Heresy's some of the old ones are kinda wait what? Donatism was one of the most significant ones, Augustine writes about it a lot. Basically people who regarded those who recanted Christianity as illegitimate priests and demanded that all priests be spiritually pure. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
I like those snake ones. I also like the guys who thought Saturn's rings were Jesus' ascended foreskin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
In the modern Catholic church claiming to have the foreskin of Christ is grounds for excommunication.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Christology just seems like more trouble than it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Richer people definitely could go through streets at night with guards and people with torches or lamps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Detracting from Ancient McDonalds I came across this amusing list of Christian Heresy's some of the old ones are kinda wait what? Pelagianism is an important one because among other things it was popular in fifth century Britain and one of the only accounts of the province during that time is the result of a future saint going across the Channel to put the fear of a Catholic God into the Britons. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Really heresies like that are less surprising when you consider that these are pretty common issues people have with the religion today (why would God allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve in the garden?) In many ways these are more common sense interpretations of the stories, though I think far less intellectually satisfying than getting into questions of the importance of Free will and the importance for God that humans be able to make mistakes and choose. It does bring back that in the Ancient world so much of what religions were weren't dictated by outside authority figures or unified sets of doctrine but sets of local beliefs that people bought into.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Christianity also has an obsession with trying to reason itself out that most other religions don't have. Christian theology is absurdly complicated compared to any other religion I can think of. Probably a consequence of Greeks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Some kind of regency or maybe up the power of the Consuls or strip away the military powers of the Emperor. I'm not at all sure that after the arbitrary power that the five previous emperors had shown (every one of whom had at some point killed dozens or hundreds of Senators) that the old aristocracy had it in them to reassert itself beyond fantasizing usurping the Julio-Claudians and taking over for their own family. Nero was childless at 31 (barring the daughter that died in infancy) and had proven to be very, very poor puppet emperor material to first his mother and then to Seneca, what sort of general or senator was going to take a chance trying to rule through him again? Even if Nero lived another 15-20 years and fathered children, his heir would be a boy on taking office and they'd have to go through the same situation again. I'd find what Sejanus tried to do a far more likely scenario in the "captive Nero" situation where someone tries to flat-out usurp the throne and start a new dynasty, which triggers more or less what happened after Nero died anyway where all the field generals think it's time to come home and claim the purple for themselves. Maybe Otho gets out of whatever ditch he's passed out drunk in and makes a bid himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Christianity also has an obsession with trying to reason itself out that most other religions don't have. Christian theology is absurdly complicated compared to any other religion I can think of. Probably a consequence of Greeks. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think Christianity has a monopoly on difficult theology. The Greek influence got into Jewish and Muslim theology just as much, although in both of those you've got an inarguable source of authority (the Quran itself and the hadiths that you can't really do more than pick or choose between nowadays or Rabbinical law) that don't quite have the same level of obvious contradiction that something like the Trinity doctrine does. Hinduism and Buddhism are in some ways easier because they're more comfortable with contradiction but that definitely doesn't make them less complex. Perhaps they do a better job of dealing with what for humans is really and Out of Context Problem (to borrow a great phrase for the concept from Ian Banks).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Maybe complex is a bad word, but the other religions I know about (I don't know that much to be fair) will have something contradictory and don't even address it. They seem very willing to accept all sorts of things and multiple truths, whereas Christianity has a long tradition of trying to nail everything down in a consistent manner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Maybe complex is a bad word, but the other religions I know about (I don't know that much to be fair) will have something contradictory and don't even address it. They seem very willing to accept all sorts of things and multiple truths, whereas Christianity has a long tradition of trying to nail everything down in a consistent manner. I think that's what happens when you have a disproportionate number of lawyers among your ranks. Or maybe it's just a legacy of the Greeks and Romans. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 09:18
|
|
