|
The Lone Badger posted:How about “the question is meaningless because ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have no objective meaning and can only be defined in terms of people anyway”? AKA “people are people, and whether that counts as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is entirely semantic”. Objectively Bad without exception: -Genocide -Colonialism -Slavery Objectively good things: -Sunshine -Lollipops -Rainbows -The Terror
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
Tulip posted:I'd say that the idea that there is variation like this would be a rejection of the entire hobbesian-rousseain spectrum concept. I think it is the most natural human tendency to speak and think in universalistic terms. All those philosophers did as such, and I have felt the tendency too, depending on my mood. A powerful writer like these or Pascal can really convince you of anything - of the nobility or debasement of mankind. And it's at those points I step out of philosophy and look at history and anthropology. I look at the remarkable diversity of the human race. I look at hunter-gatherer tribes and realize how stupid it is to say they are identical to us. To label them with Original Sin or even original goodness is presumptuous and arrogant. I guess this puts me closer to Rousseau, though, because he rightly points out how people like Hobbes judged all of humankind based on their observations of the people around them. Even if every human being you've ever met is an evil SOB, that doesn't lead to humans are inherently evil. I guess I think the only universal human tendency is to find meaning in our lives, hence the universality of religion. I read a really cool book on psychology, built off existential philosophers, which went into this. https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Existential-Psychology-Culture-Suffering-Threat/dp/1107096863 The environment we grow up with shapes the most basic features of our lives, like how we cope with that desperate need for meaning. It's the area of philosophy I've always been most intrigued with - the idea that we Modern (Western) humans are in this unique vacuum of meaning. Nietzsche figured this out better than anyone. Sadly, we still haven't actually solved the Death of God. At this point in time and in my life, I doubt we ever will. But that need for meaning explains humans so much more than labels like Good or Evil, IMO. Roger Griffin's analysis of fascism fascinates me because of this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 02:02
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Objectively good things: The book or the Netflix adaptation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 04:30
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Objectively good things: Danton did nothing wrong
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 04:42
|
|
|
FishFood posted:Danton did nothing wrong Danton got got, so there was something wrong in that chain of events.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 07:33
|
|
|
Carillon posted:Danton got got, so there was something wrong in that chain of events. Fine. Robespierre did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 10:03
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Objectively Bad without exception: I recall the rainbow in Judaism being a symbol signifying God's promise to not destroy humanity and whenever he feels like destroying it he sends one up. So, not a good thing. Also makes me wonder how people would attach symbolism to something that has a very obvious correlation with natural phenomena and that you can induce to occur yourself. But it's quite possible this symbolism is a more modern invention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 11:58
|
|
|
I know this is a steaming turd of a take but hearing about warfare in the European Neolithic/early bronze age, I.e. societies without the capacity to really take captives, has me kind of viscerally terrified compared to just the general dull horror of state era warfare. Maybe it's just since it's new to me as a subject, but hearing about massacre sites where the entire clan is rounded up in their sleep and gets their heads bashed in (and how that seems to have been the norm in warfare??) I don't know that I wouldn't prefer enslavement. I mean, almost certainly not in the actual moment. More just expressing another holy poo poo at how violent that era seems to have been. David Anthony (of Indo-European fame) was talking in an interview about how demographically conflicts seem often to have had like a 30% fatality rate. It's as if every single conflict was initiated by the Mongols at their most brutal. I'm glad I didnt live back then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 12:56
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I know this is a steaming turd of a take but hearing about warfare in the European Neolithic/early bronze age, I.e. societies without the capacity to really take captives, has me kind of viscerally terrified compared to just the general dull horror of state era warfare. Maybe it's just since it's new to me as a subject, but hearing about massacre sites where the entire clan is rounded up in their sleep and gets their heads bashed in (and how that seems to have been the norm in warfare??) I don't know that I wouldn't prefer enslavement. Don't worry! You wouldn't have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 13:30
|
|
|
Random and/or horrific violence can happen in any era, I think studying history bears that out. There is no societal or technological advancement that takes that possibility away, because other people still make their own choices, regardless of our own. Living in any era would be fine for me, because I know that existence is as good for us as we make it together, and that was just as much the case in prehistory as it is today. Like yeah, maybe there were a lot of ancient ugly neolithic massacres, but there are also a lot of ugly modern massacres too. Any insulation I think I have from them is an illusion of safety that doesn't actually exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 13:32
|
|
|
Horrible things always happen for sure. Just by nature of there being so many more people, I'm sure that in an absolute sense far more horrific things happened with far more regularity in later eras. But per capita I think it sounds like it was a very different story; prehistoric conflict seems like it was demographically devastating, actively genocidal, in a way that later conflicts near always just couldn't be. I would definitely pick a later era. Or earlier. Early farming was the worst of all worlds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 13:51
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Horrible things always happen for sure. Just by nature of there being so many more people, I'm sure that in an absolute sense far more horrific things happened with far more regularity in later eras. But per capita I think it sounds like it was a very different story; prehistoric conflict seems like it was demographically devastating, actively genocidal, in a way that later conflicts near always just couldn't be. For my choices any time there was straight chattel slavery would be my worst pick. So the United States from conception to the 1870s would be the worst. Followed by Rome. The chances are pretty good you’ll just be a slave in the mines. Next would being alive in the vicinity of the Aztec culture during the Flower wars. Slave or sacrifice and invited to feed the masses take your pick. Crab Dad fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 14:44
|
|
|
Orbs posted:Random and/or horrific violence can happen in any era, I think studying history bears that out. There is no societal or technological advancement that takes that possibility away, because other people still make their own choices, regardless of our own. to me i think its the conflict between human altruism and limited resources. In the prehistorical period, people were absolutely altruistic. They cared for the sick or the disabled and they valued old and infirm members of their tribe/band/village. however when they are forced to migrate, or some event causes resources to no longer be as prevalent and other groups are now direct rivals, its literally a survival situation. That same willingness to protect their own will lead to taking very drastic and harsh actions against rival groups because there is no safety net, no one to look out for your tribe if poo poo goes south. if things are not too desperate, border clashes and skirmishes might settle disputes over hunting/foraging grounds, or access to chert or other resources. but if one or both groups have their backs to the wall, doing something as nasty as killing the rival group in their sleep becomes a valid and "necessary" act. Not doing so might mean your loved ones starve, and if the rival band is similarly desperate, its a matter of when, not if, one of those exceedingly violent acts is done to you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 14:53
|
|
|
A lot of smaller scale conflicts would become genocidal by default back in those days. People living in smaller groups compared to later civilizations so it doesn't take a lot of killing to wipe out a unique group. You also don't even have to kill people directly. If you run a bunch of people off their land, then farmers no longer have the crops that they worked hard to cultivate. Going back to hunting and gathering to scavenge for food will mean a lot of people starve to death with less food, and even seasoned hunter/gatherers may end up out of their depth if they're run off into an area where they don't know the local plants and animals and have to build a new knowledge base from scratch.Carillon posted:Danton got got, so there was something wrong in that chain of events. If only more champions of lynch mobs and coups would get couped and lynched.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Fine. Robespierre did nothing wrong. He was a gigantic liberal which is pretty wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 15:09
|
|
|
mme la guillotine did nothing wrong
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 15:25
|
|
|
Every historical figure lacks my enlightened perspective as the peak of science and art. They are all evil bastards, with the exception of a couple I personally liked reading about, who were merely misguided on some matters, largely due to the interference of the evil bastards. Based on this firm foundation, I predict the ultimate triumph of the Gauls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 15:36
|
|
|
Yeah for all that it must have been awful to live in the age of door to door political murder, just think how good it would have been if the people being murdered were the baddies!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 16:24
|
|
|
Justified state executions aren’t murder. The king had it coming for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:A lot of smaller scale conflicts would become genocidal by default back in those days. People living in smaller groups compared to later civilizations so it doesn't take a lot of killing to wipe out a unique group. You also don't even have to kill people directly. If you run a bunch of people off their land, then farmers no longer have the crops that they worked hard to cultivate. Going back to hunting and gathering to scavenge for food will mean a lot of people starve to death with less food, and even seasoned hunter/gatherers may end up out of their depth if they're run off into an area where they don't know the local plants and animals and have to build a new knowledge base from scratch. IIRC at one point the Cheyenne were driven off their lands by the Athabascans (who had access to French guns and needed the fur trade hunting grounds to afford them) and they lost their crops and their ability to farm and so they switched back to hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The book I read said there was someone who interviewed an old woman of the tribe who said something along the lines of "My grandma said that when she was a little girl and they had to flee they had to leave all the old folks behind" which sounds pretty grim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Yeah for all that it must have been awful to live in the age of door to door political murder, just think how good it would have been if the people being murdered were the baddies!  once we kill all the bad people everything will work out. Seems flawless
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Justified state executions aren’t murder. The king had it coming for example. Ah, a Roundhead I see
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 23:56
|
|
|
ACAB All Cavaliers Are Bastards. ARAB All Roundheads Are Bastards
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 01:59
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:ACAB need to be careful with that second one lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:need to be careful with that second one lol like, it's in his post/username combo even.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 14:30
|
|
|
AHAB All Harpooners Are Bastards
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
hell yes
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:to me i think its the conflict between human altruism and limited resources. In the prehistorical period, people were absolutely altruistic. They cared for the sick or the disabled and they valued old and infirm members of their tribe/band/village. however when they are forced to migrate, or some event causes resources to no longer be as prevalent and other groups are now direct rivals, its literally a survival situation. That same willingness to protect their own will lead to taking very drastic and harsh actions against rival groups because there is no safety net, no one to look out for your tribe if poo poo goes south. But that's present/future stuff. It is interesting to think about how changes in resource distribution have driven history, although from what I understand it can be very difficult to get reliable data on things like economic and (lower class) social history. A lot of what is out there in the popular sphere relies on what basically amounts to guesswork. (Of course, if any historians in the thread have better information, feel free to share, this is just based on what I've seen.) Also hell yes. (I think I know how he returned though-- he scammed Death, who owes him many mina of silver and can't take his soul until Death pays the debt.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 13:50
|
|
|
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691213026/1177-bc#preview Not a release I was expecting but I am intrigued
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
Koramei posted:https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691213026/1177-bc#preview what the hell I did like the text version of that a lot
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 03:58
|
|
|
Tulip posted:what the hell He does also have a new (normal-format) book coming out in 2 days called After 1177 B.C.: The Survival of Civilizations, about the Early Iron Age.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 04:47
|
|
|
I have a general history question. Its not really roman history, but since this is the only history thread I can find, I'll post it here. Does anyone know what the oldest surviving date written is?By that I mean a AD/CE date written on a document or artifact that is believed to be accurate. I have tried to google for this, but nothing comes up. It doesn't seem to be a "category" that historians recognize. I nominate this drawing by Albrecht Durer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Self-portrait_at_13_by_Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer.jpg It has the date 1484 written on it, and it is believed to be from 1484. I have personally never seen one older than this, but I am wondering if anyone here knows of any older one...
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
School of How posted:I have a general history question. Its not really roman history, but since this is the only history thread I can find, I'll post it here. The BC/AD system was proposed in 525 AD and spread rapidly, so there are likely going to be lots of documents from around that time dated that way. ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini quote:The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus to enumerate years in his Easter table. His system was to replace the Diocletian era that had been used in older Easter tables, as he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.[9] The last year of the old table, Diocletian Anno Martyrium 247, was immediately followed by the first year of his table, Anno Domini 532. There you go. 532 AD Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
School of How posted:I have a general history question. Its not really roman history, but since this is the only history thread I can find, I'll post it here. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History uses BC & AD and manuscripts from the 8th or early 9th century exist. Before that the system was not widely used—Bede didn’t invent it but it was a niche thing before him. Although that is not the same as the oldest written date, just the oldest in the modern/Christian dating system. there are probably a number of Mesopotamian documents that are dated 3000+ years ago, as long as you don’t want a date more precise than “the nth day of the nth month of the year of the eponymy of Grabbu-Assur”
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The BC/AD system was proposed in 525 AD and spread rapidly, so there are likely going to be lots of documents from around that time dated that way. The thing is, Dionysius Exiguus's original manuscripts doesn't survive. I'm looking for the oldest example that survives. Let me ask this question another way. Does anybody know of a surviving document or artifact from the years 1400 to 1484 that still exists and is believed to not be a fake, and also has the year written on it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:30
|
|
|
If you're going outside the AD system there are specific Roman dates pretty early on, ignoring legendary specific dates like April 21, 753. The earliest one I can think of is November 25, 571 BC for a triumph of Servius Tullius, who probably was real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
I wonder who Servius Tullius thought Christ was
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
zoux posted:I wonder who Servius Tullius thought Christ was  Earliest thing with an AD date is going to be medieval so outside my field, but if we're just going dates there are tons of Roman ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasti They kept a lot of calendar-type situations around and we have many surviving examples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 21:40
|
|