/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

Mode: Thread

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

(248.91 KB 934x900 stalin3.jpg)
Comrade 05/12/2020 (Tue) 17:53:47 No. 1569 [Reply]
Do you prefer physical or digital books /edu/?
27 posts and 3 images omitted.
>>1569 Physical but cause Coronalol, digital so I can use Sci-hub
>>1569 Digital Though if the apocalypse happens I might regret that
>>1569 physical always.
I can't read online. I print out PDFs sometimes though instead of buying.
Either digital copies or hardcover physical books. Paperbacks are pure degeneracy and counter-revolutionairy ;)

(46.81 KB 269x183 logo.PNG)
How to pirate Enclyclopaedia Britannica Comrade 10/17/2020 (Sat) 15:04:26 No. 5005 [Reply]
I feel the need to read in the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica, not wikipedia, but the fuckers only allow me to see the first part of the articles without a pls pay wall. Is there a form of researching there being poor? like https://www.britannica.com/technology/history-of-technology

Comrade 05/17/2020 (Sun) 23:02:39 No. 1677 [Reply]
any good books on the medieval period? yes i have already read the peseant war in germany, no i did not understood what the fuck it was saying
4 posts and 3 images omitted.
>>1677 John Hatcher and Mark Bailey Modelling the Middle Ages The Brenner Debate (Specifically 'Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe') Guy Bois, The Crisis of Feudalism : Economy and Society in Eastern Normandy C1300-1550 Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonisation and Cultural Change: 950-1350 (Personal fave, the least dry out of all the texts and it gives you a broad picture for you to decide what your interested in) As posted by previous anon, 'The Three Orders' is a must imo. If you have a specific area your interested in that would help as there's a lot going on at the same time, and it becomes tricky to create general histories due to the variety of shit that was going on across europe. Especially since a lot of histories just ignore eastern europe.
Jacques Le Goff
From a more rightist colleague I've heard John Huizinga's "Autumn of the Middle Ages" as THE book I should read. (His 'Homo Ludens' also sounds quite interesting)
Why does a full suit of High Middle Ages chainmail, like with coif, hauberk, mufflers, cuisse, etc. look so fucking good?
A bit specialist, but there are some reading recommendations in this academic syllabus for anyone interested in medieval philosophy and theology: https://itself.blog/2020/10/08/angels-and-demons-syllabus/#more-27219

(827.32 KB 2000x1336 Kafta-sheraro-park-slider.jpg)
Ethiopian elephants Comrade 10/15/2020 (Thu) 03:00:46 No. 4994 [Reply]
Did the ancient/medieval Ethiopians domesticate the African elephant? In many historical records, the Abyssinians/Aksumites are mentioned to use elephants for military purposes, but were these African elephants or Asian elephants? In modern-day Ethiopia, or in fact anywhere for that matter, there is no sign of domestication of the African elephant. However, African elephants have been extensively used in ancient times for military purposes, for example by the Carthaginians.
thank you for your contribution to this board my friend
>>4994 phroo :DD
>>4994 Those war elephants were probably from a now extinct western subspecies of Asian elephant, or northern subspecies of African forest elephant.
Are elephants comrades?
>>5001 Of course. We shall help them develop their brains and social minds until they are our equals. Like dolphins UPHOLD POSADAS

(2.82 MB 1920x1080 1584479929023-1.png)
Reforms possible post-capitalist society Comrade 08/12/2020 (Wed) 20:50:59 No. 2987 [Reply]
This thread is for large-scale improvements or even small tweaks in society that are impossible to implement under capitalism. Inspiration for this thread came after reading this https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xgqkyw/copper-destroys-viruses-and-bacteria-why-isnt-it-everywhere >Today, we have insight into why a person handling copper day in and day out would have protection from a bacterial threat: Copper is antimicrobial. It kills bacteria and viruses, sometimes within minutes. In the 19th century, exposure to copper would have been an early version of constantly sanitizing one's hands. >A study from 2015 found that a different coronavirus, human coronavirus 229E, which causes respiratory tract infections, could still infect a human lung cell after five days of being on materials like teflon, ceramic, glass, silicone rubber, and stainless steel. But on copper alloys, the coronavirus was “rapidly inactivated.” >So given how well it could work, for hospital infections and for health more generally, why isn’t copper everywhere? Why isn’t every door knob, every subway rail, every ICU room, made of copper? Why can we easily buy stainless steel water bottles, but not copper? Where are the copper iPhone cases? >There might also be a perception that copper is too expensive, Schmidt said, despite the fact that the numbers indicate it would ultimately save money. One of Keevil and Schmidt's studies from 2015 did the math: The cost of treating an HAI ranges from $28,400 to $33,800 per patient. Installing copper on 10 percent of surfaces cost $52,000 and prevented 14 infections over the course of the 338-day study. If you take the lower end of the HAI treatment cost ($28,400), then those 14 prevented infections saved a total of $397,600, or $1,176 a day. So while the material and reason to use copper for most things are there. The kind of short-term market logic that makes it impossible to do anything about climate change also prevents this move from being made.
4 posts omitted.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch13.htm > 3. It is necessary, in the third place, to ensure such a cultural advancement of society as will secure for all members of society the all-round development of their physical and mental abilities, so that the members of society may be in a position to receive an education sufficient to enable them to be active agents of social development, and in a position freely to choose their occupations and not be tied all their lives, owing to the existing division of labour, to some one occupation. >What is required for this? >It would be wrong to think that such a substantial advance in the cultural standard of the members of society can be brought about without substantial changes in the present status of labour. For this, it is necessary, first of all, to shorten the working day at least to six, and subsequently to five hours. This is needed in order that the members of society might have the necessary free time to receive an all-round education. It is necessary, further, to introduce universal compulsory polytechnical education, which is requiredin order that the members of society might be able freely to choose their occupations and not be tied to some one occupation all their lives. It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved, and that real wages of workers and employees should be at least doubled, if not more, both by means of direct increases of wages and salaries, and, more especially, by further systematic reductions of prices for consumer goods. >These are the basic conditions required to pave the way for the transition to communism. >Only after all these preliminary conditions are satisfied in their entirety may it be hoped that work will be converted in the eyes of the members of society from a nuisance into "life's prime want" (Marx), (8) that "labour will become a pleasure instead of being a burden" (Engels), (9) and that social property will be regarded by all members of society as the sacred and inviolable basis of the existence of society. >Only after all these preliminary conditions have been satisfied in their entirety will it be possible to pass from the socialist formula, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work," to the communist formula, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Doesn't copper oxidize, effectively having to be replaced every 10-20 years because it's surface wouldn't inactivate viruses anymore?
>>4945 i wonder if you could just sand/scruff the surface??
>>4945 No, read the piece >Another reason copper may have been passed over for steel, plastic, or glass is that it can easily tarnish and requires a lot of cleaning to remain shiny. “But copper is antimicrobial regardless of how grody it looks, if it turns green on you, it still has the ability to kill bacteria and viruses and fungi,” he said.
Whales are one of the best ways to sustainably store carbon away from the environment because they eat a lot and then sink to the bottom of the ocean. Why are whales going extinct? Over-fishing, pollution, lots of reasons >Now we turn to the economic side of the solution. Protecting whales has a cost. Mitigating the many threats to whales involves compensating those causing the threats, a group that includes countries, businesses, and individuals. Ensuring that this approach is practical involves determining whales’ monetary value. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/natures-solution-to-climate-change-chami.htm

Historical Development Comrade 10/09/2020 (Fri) 23:44:06 No. 4933 [Reply]
A thread for sharing and discussing information related to the historical development of humanity. Here's my opening contribution https://youtu.be/wnqS7G3LmMo?t=1619 timestamp is 27 minutes if the link doesn't work(skipping a lot of introduction). I like the presenters maxim of >geography determines social development and social development determines what geography means Of course i'd replace 'geography' with 'material conditions' but that's a small nitpick in an otherwise great presentation. The other nitpick is the absence of the idea of a mode of production. We all know how inefficient capitalism is at its uses of the geography/resources it potentially has at its disposal. The profit motive holds back the total use of geography that would be a huge boon on the level of the guns and boat revolution in the 1400s
This helps. I’m a complete brainlet when it comes to history. Is there like a brief book/video/resource that traces the entire major human historical periods and progression? Like I know some very small basics about middle ages, enlightenment renaissance etc, but I don’t know how they interact and how to piece them together as one piece of development?

(2.04 MB 1679x2548 yamnaya pca raddle.png)
white people are mixed race 10/07/2020 (Wed) 04:57:58 No. 4912 [Reply]
date: 9-4kya blue = european orange = levant MENA green = iran MENA 9kya, levants colonize europe and mix with european foragers. The mixing ultimately ends up being on somewhat even terms. 5kya, a mixed race group (half euro half iran) colonizes europe very hard, killing off both euro/levant males and essentially raping their women. These "aryans" introduce the indoeuropean languages into europe. Every european today has these three ancestries in their genome. Some europeans, like italians and greeks, are more Middle Eastern than European. The average Brit is 60% european, 40% MENA (30% levant and 10% iran) In addition, Finns and Russians have about 10% Asian ancestry from Uralics.
5 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>4937 >lol they have shit science >lol see, look at these different nations >huh huh nations means race cus reasons >Personally, I am just kinda disgusted by the entire European ancestry >im a good guy huh huh >by the way white isnt real after all of my reasons wew i love you guys, its like metoker is back already hahahaha
>>4939 >ya so is everyone else retard Not really, at least not in the same scale. In a strict sense, yes everyone (and everything) is mixed race. In a more liberal sense, only Eurasians were mixed race until recently. Africans, Americans, and Oceanians were all genetically pretty pure. And even within Eurasia, Europeans are more mixed than Indians (maybe excepting Pakistanis) or any of the Asian races. >you know that ethnicity has existed for thousands of years before anyone knew anything about this bullshit? cope, these genes have existed for millions of years before humans even learned how to walk upright. We only started knowing about them 50 years ago, doesn't make them only 50 years old.
>>4940 He's right though, italians are considered white now. Irish/Polish is a spook because they are nordeuro. But italians look different, esp the southern ones that came to the US. Next step is Mestizo Latinos start getting the white treatment >nation means race yeah, it's arbitrary and retarded just like your system. I see no problem here. scientifically, Europe is a Middle Eastern rapebaby reservoir. "White" is not a race, it's an appearance. White people are mixed race.
(547.19 KB 1560x1720 yamnaya.jpg)
Fun fact, the purest Europeans were quite dark skinned (think Native North American, if not darker) Light skin was introduced via Middle Eastern farmer/pastoralist migrants. These MENAs mixed with the local population, and as they adapted to a more lactovegetarian diet, they developed even lighter skin than the original MENAs, due to the dark climate. The original pure Europeans were also exclusively light-eyed, and actually all genetically European groups were 100% light eyed 10kya. Brown eyes are a Middle Eastern feature.
>>4954 explains why my Iranian friends are pastier than most americans

Aesthetics Comrade 08/26/2020 (Wed) 14:12:08 No. 3769 [Reply]
Hume established criteria for good taste. However, criteria for good taste says nothing about criteria for good art. So what then is the criteria for good art, the seeming elephant in the room left unaddressed in the realm of aesthetics? How can you call something good art if you cannot even define what is good art?
This is just my initial thoughts, but the way I see it there are 2 dimensions of which to asses art. The rational, and the irrational (I may come up with better terms later), the rational is the analyzing of artistic skills. On one side of the spectrum, a virtuosic musician who's music is theoretically genius but doesn't sound 'good', i.e. unless you are versed in the musical medium it is impossible for you to 'understand' how it is impressive. The other, irrational, is how it makes you feel. I enjoy some abstract paintings because they make me feel a certain way, regardless of whether or not 'my 4 year old could have done that', it provokes a certain emotion in me, that is usually tied to memories and such. An extreme version of this is a pop song that is very catchy and fun, even if you hate what it stands for and can see it is only 4 very basic chords. So there is no such thing as good art, but I think art can enter a certain goldilocks zone where it combines rational and irrational properties in an artistic way. I think a prime example of this would be Van Gogh, probably the most loved painter in the western world. The marriage of 'aesthetic' beauty with artistic skill.
(16.75 KB 389x255 Hirst-Shark.jpg)
(196.50 KB 724x1023 4768537374_5474fbc949_b.jpg)
Don't know, anon. But Technical skill comes into it, as this video with Tracey Emin suggests. (She's talking about the fine arts in it; even though she became famous for the unmade bed exhibit, she seems to suggest that a grounding in the fine arts first is necessary to consider yourself an artist. .) https://youtu.be/7utbB8A_Rt4 I don't really agree with that myself. The unmade bed's status as art (or not) shouldnt be affected by unrelated artistic training. The radical feminist Helen Lewis suggests good art is art in which the medium is the message : <If there is anything I have learned from the writer and director Robert Icke, it’s that the medium is the message. A play about identity should play with identity. A play about the truth should question whether what we are seeing is the truth. A play about justice should ask us to judge. <Form and content are two sides of the same coin https://helenlewis.substack.com/?utm_campaign=pub&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy The effect on the viewer of art consumer is probably the most important thing. Art should probably take you out of yourself, expand your horizons in some way, and do this through an aesthetic medium . But there should be some lasting impression on you of something profounder than ordinary life, otherwise it's just a means to kill time, entertainment.
i think before thinking about what is good art you've gotta decide what 'art' even is to you, whats excluded from that category and what is fundamental to it, etc. And whether or not you want to just define the word or define the idea... Colloquailly art refers to shit like paintings and statues that are meant to be looked at, almost in contrast to their surrounding environments which are not meant to be looked at? And so we get a urinal or a bed can be art if it's in a setting where you look at things and try to find their beauty or meaning. But is a house art? Does that depend on the intention of the architect, or what? So anyways im kind of bored of that kind of art honestly. There's so much more beauty and inspiration in different mediums other than the small, visual, single-person projects that characterize what i think is usually called art. A great landscape, a great event, a beautiful life, a village, etc. But these arent all created with intent, or with the intent of inspiring, and they are often able to be interacted with. I'd so much prefer a world of beauty embodied in our surroundings and lives and culture than something to hang on the wall (or god forbid only see on a screen while trolling for "art" on some website) or put in the garden. So fuck art as dualism, you end up with an ugly world and pretty little trivialities. That said, what is good art? who knows, why does it even need to be formulated? I think its just something that satisfies our tastes, like how good food is what satisfies your tastes. It's totally subjective and can change, like when you crave a piece of good fish and you eat it and its great, it was great food, but later you might eat it and its just acceptable, not great and not bad. And then some things obviously are repulsive. Is there actually a better way of defining how something meant to please the senses is good other than how well it pleases them? There's technical skill, but if the skill doesnt translate to how pleasing the product is, then i think its not relevant, and at best it might just be a sort of pointless middle-man criteria. But also what is pleasing isnt always warm of comforting, a HUGE axis for something seeming aesthetical and pleasing i think is that it does its purpose well, or embodies its own qualities in some inspiring way. I think of like the almost universal attraction to animals in their wild habitat. Part of it is maybe this fetishistic attitude that sees them as unthinking and unable to be unnatural, but maybe thats where so much of their beauty to us comes from. I think of soviet realism, and how just a portrayal of people doing their thing and being themselves is a good subject for beautiful art (which also has to carry out the beauty and feel of the subjects through its medium and technique, which requires tons of skill). Like a decrepit old woman who is no longer beautiful can still be aesthetical, by embodying herself and some perceived ideal or norm. As well, sometimes the purpose of art is to say something, and if it says this thing well in its whole being, i think its good art and its own embodiment of its message is pleasing. I dont thnk the point of art should be having meaning, but i think that meaning or conveying some message is an important aspect that art can have. At a base level, all art conveys or creates in the viewer at least a feeling, but sometimes this message is more complex. Either way, there's a transfer of some information that the artist tries to get across, a feeling or something else. But sometimes the viewer gets more or less than what the artist intended, and i dont think thats bad or "misreading" should be cared about unless maybe there was a very explicit "right" message of the art, but anyways the message gotten is very variable so its sort of hard to define out where the intentionality and message end, because a great work of art might say things to people that were never intended, and be great because of it, because they get a point across beautifully, but not the intended point. But not all of these things i called aesthetic are intentional, so whether or not they're art is up to anyone i guess. I dont know where to draw that line, and if it should be drawn maybe or if "art" should be phased out and beauty - intentional or not - should be given more attention.

Comrade 10/11/2020 (Sun) 04:01:43 No. 4942 [Reply]
Can someone get me this? I'm getting copyright blocked and cant find it anywhere. Bellu, E. "The Dialectical Significance of Chemistry in the Works of Fr. Engels." Revue roumaine des sciences sociales: serie de philosophie et logique 17 (1973): 163-169. Bellu, E. The Dialectical Significance of Chemistry in the Work of Friedrich Engels. Romanian Journal of Social Sciences Philosophy and Logic Series, Volume 17, 1973, 163-169. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000494736
(2.18 MB imyanitov2015.pdf)
Looks ridiculously hard to find, the closest library I could find that collected that journal was several thousand kilometers from me and stopped their subscription to that journal a decade before that paper If you specifically need that paper you're probably going to have to travel to your closest major library and hassle the librarians there to get a cross institutional copy .pdf attached might be an acceptable substitute for your purposes maybe?
(53.35 KB 1456x689 hw4r54h.png)
>>4943 Thanks for trying. I already read that one actually, and the two others google scholar has that also cite Bellu E. They are tangentially related, that one is mostly about the authors interest in synergetics, but I'm more interested in Dialectics and Chemistry alone specifically. I can search hathitrust articles with a guest account and it throws back a result so I think theres a digital copy there, and its searchable in english.

(1.50 MB 2976x2352 Great Soviet Encyclopedia.JPG)
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia Comrade 09/17/2020 (Thu) 16:32:04 No. 4201 [Reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia The third (last) edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia was translated into English for a western publisher almost concurrently with the Russian encyclopedia's publication. Given its obvious significance, it's surprising that not a single volume has circulated online like many other books.
>>4313(me) it should be noted however, that the encyclopedia edition is of the 70s
>Given its obvious significance, it's surprising that not a single volume has circulated online like many other books. It's not surprising at all. Many "official" texts published in the USSR, especially the late USSR, were a mishmash of state-approved ideology and dogma. I tried reading Brezhnev's autobiography (or just biography?) and it was absolutely worthless. It was full of truisms like, "He always works well with others, and always asks for everyone's opinion before making a decision."


no cookies?