No.1795800
today, the ides of march commenced 2068 years ago, murdering comrade julius in cold blood. rest in power
mandatory reading:
https://archive.org/details/assassinationofj00mich No.1795814
>>1795800Wasn't the guy that killed julius cesar one of the worst sinners and was burning on the worst places of hell? Dante aliguiere said so, and he visited hell himself!
No.1795821
>>1795814Yes, brutus.
Killed him because muh democracy and now he is down there with judas.
No.1795828
>>1795821Good to know the good guy agrees!
No.1795847
Reminder that Julius Caesar was not prejudiced against the Jews and Antipater saved his ass in Alexandria, and their later persecution by Roman rulers followed his assassination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipater_the_Idumaean No.1795850
WE ARE ALREADY LIVING UNDER SOCIALISM AND GENES ARE NOT REAL.
No.1795863
>>1795850So… vaccines really do cause autism. I thought mine was genetic.
No.1795873
Cesear wasn't a comrade. He was a succdem with iron balls
No.1795879
>>1795865No love for the Gracchi?
No.1796109
>>1795879Yes. And Catalinus, Clodius, and the boys who burned down the senate.
No.1796235
>>1795800reasons for why he is a comrade?
No.1796269
Fuck off Caleb
No.1796398
i love parenti but he was wrong about this goofy shit
No.1796405
>>1796398He's got a point about "gentleman history"
No.1796497
>>1796398why was he wrong; please explain for those of us who are stupid
No.1796691
>>1796453The Ides was literally just the other day. We could have had Fully Manual Luxury Roman Socialism dude.
>>1796497I dunno. I listened through it and it sounded pretty spot on. He makes a few direct parallels between the economic and political situations of then and now that might be worth scrutiny but nothing that I'd say was "wrong."
No.1796695
>>1796497Caesar wasn't a proletarian hero, yes he was a populares but his primary goal was his own glory, his actions destroyed a republic that had stood for hundreds of years and from that point Rome basically slid downhill in terms of living conditions for the majority of people. Not to mention that his campaigns against the Gauls were basically just genocide, even by the standards of Rome he was a flagrant warmonger and butcher.
No.1796697
>>1796695booj republik, libby
No.1796812
>applying capitalist concepts to a non-capitalist society
god you faggots truly are retards
No.1796824
>>1796697bourgeois republic > monarchic empire (in civil war every like 10 years for rest of existence)
No.1796925
>>1796453I think about Ancient Greece every day, Romans took it away from us, and then christianity corrupted our souls. =(
No.1796929
>>1796925Greeks were just sitting around all day shitposting, when the romans actually got shit done
No.1796938
>>1796929>Greeks were just sitting around all day shitposting, when the romans actually got shit doneWell, maybe that's why I like Ancient Greece more. ^^
While Romans were staying in the illusion of the ritual of warfare, Greeks knew they were strangers who found themselves in this absurdness we call life. Their distress was not from defeat in a war, but failing in the journey of perhaps becoming the abstract mediator that will resolve their indecisiveness and uncertainity. Even their Gods had that feelings.
Maybe, after slowly descending into Hades, we will still be trapped in our current state for an eternity. Hades maybe found peace by not questioning and keeping the place in an elegant silence, but, Socrates and many dead souls may still not find peace there.
No.1796941
Was Rome AES? Was Sparta polpotist?
No.1796944
>>1796941Actually Existing Slavery? Sure.
No.1796951
anyone got the parentis book on ceasar and rome?
No.1796953
>>1796938In phaedo, socrates explains that the true philosopher vanishes into the silence of his soul, so i doubt he has much more thinking to do
Pre and post-trial socrates are different creatures. First he's grooming charmides and praising eros, then he's denouncing life and drinking hemlock.
Also my favourite moment of socrates is his appeal to the daemon and his admission that he wanted to write stories like aesop. Whats great about it is that plato himself was a playwright before he met socrates and burned his plays thereafter by becoming a disciple to him.
So plato as socrates displays a hidden regret here and gives poetic confession that it is indeed the irrational which stirs man in his meaning. Reason is not enough.
No.1796969
Okay, so what are the ideas for March?
1) Establish communication with alien comrades;
2) defeat Ukraine
What else?
No.1796970
>>1795861>Gaius Cassius Longinus>LongunusHa ha ha
10/10 name.
No.1796978
>>1796953I see, but, what is reason to you alongside with irrationalism? Just because a qualititive notion of abstract 'cause' attritubed into the process of an action, does it become matter of pure reason instead of irrational forces?
>socrates explains that the true philosopher vanishes into the silence of his soulMaybe it is because he can't make judgements due to overwhelming indecisiveness and uncertainity surrounding his soul.
No.1796982
>>1796978Reason to me is man trusting in his critical thought; it is man appealing to the impersonal, which he then attempts to instruct upon himself. Reason is the monotheistic God; the form of forms which itself is formless (as per parmenides - and by inference of his pupil, Xeno).
Where we see reason emerge in human culture we see the attempt to "reach" this transcendence through ritual in the same manner. This isnt religion precisely, but it is high religion, it is theology, its what nietzsche would call "the will to power" in its "brahminic" (priestly/intellectual) expression. The Will turned against itself for the sake of self-overcoming.
Philosophy (the love of wisdom/sophia/soul) is this in kind. All philosophy is monotheistic because it makes claim to truth as something intelligible by reason, and too from the rites of self-mortification, it is life-denying, like the late socrates who in the end sums up philosophy ss "the practice of death" just like the eastern philosophers describe meditation. But this death is a spiritual death of the soul being for itself, as socrates also describes in phaedo. For this, as socrates explains, a philosopher can only hate his body, where plato expresses the body as a tomb, and even jesus too, "for whoever loves his life shall lose it".
To me, this is reason and philosophy; the practice of death in nearing oneself to God. But alas, this brings no true passion to socrates - it is not "true" in a way that love is true, for to reason is not a labour of love, but of contrivance, of duty - but what remains beyond duty?
I would call it "the self", what we *really* are. Whatever we do, that nagging voice in our heads wont go away, that voice of wonder and stupidity. It is false, but it is true. Iy is beyond reason, even beyond God; it is ourselves. When a man dies he does not disappear, as socrates also identifies - his spirit passes on to new forms, he may even be said to wander like a ghost, for he has betrayed his destiny. There is every man's fate, but his destiny, his purpose, his meaning, is entirely different.
The scholar can have vanity in his knowledge, but is he truly fulfilled? Truly happy? When socrates listens to his daemon, what is he saying?
Reason is not enough.
No.1796987
>>1796695>his actions destroyed a republic that had stood for hundreds of yearsA Republic that was thoroughly captured by the interests of big landowners. The only reason Caesar got as popular as he did was because traditional Republican institutions were failing to represent the vast majority of people. Idk if Caesar would have seriously improved things had he lived, but the loss of the Republic was no great loss for the majority of citizens, nevermind slaves, freedmen, etc.
>>1796824>in civil war every like 10 years for rest of existenceRome started having civil wars prior to the fall of the Republic. Sulla's Civil War and the Social War were both decades before that. They happened precisely because the Republican state apparatus was not capable of containing the internal contradictions of Roman society. I seriously doubt a Republic would have done a better job of keeping things together when it was coming apart at the seams generations before Caesar.
No.1796991
>>1796988I was only memeing
But everytime i think of rome i think of the aqueducts and its just incomparable in antiquity
No.1796999
>>1796988>Alexander>GreekHe was a Seleucid you chinlet
No.1797028
>>1796982Nice text :O, I hope I understood, and I guess I agree in it mostly on the part that the 'philosophy' was a try act of transcending the self in a way to reach an allegorical idea of God which stands above all, while it is being theistic in a manner of it presupposes things.
But, there is a thing still bugging me, I do not think that 'the self' is not a thing in itself which is indenpendent from transcendental phenomena. Like, I've always found the idea of consuming a drug very scary, because it seems it involves in us as an outer matter, brings us to an another state. The same happens when I realize that my opinions 'change' , I feel like I am a mere puppet of alien laws whilst being 'myself' at the same time. May I ask you, do you think a deaf person can enjoy music? Can a blind person enjoy poems?
No.1797138
>>1795800Reminder that Rome was more similar to what they called barbarians to anyhting that exists right now.
No.1797143
>>1797138The vandals and the goths were a civilizing force
No.1797233
>>1795814I dont think that really happened bro
No.1797243
>>1797028>But, there is a thing still bugging me, I do not think that 'the self' is not a thing in itself which is indenpendent from transcendental phenomena.I draw a division in conceptual thought between the "logocentric" and "mythic". The first concerns itself with realising the idea - it is the concept of eternal and universal truth. The second is an active worldview of self-discovery. The christian is logocentric - he talks about the soul and what you need to do to keep it from sinning. I am a pagan (which is not a "belief system", but a worldview [weltenschauung], an ethos. I might think sin is wrong but i wont send you to hell). This perspective is "mythic" since it concerns the theme of personal identity by our life story, our destiny and fate. The pagan folklore was scarcely written down, it was not chronicled as a series of historical facts, it was not made into a universal doctrine or otherwise. The pagan faith is just about legends, not about ritual.
To me, the idea of the self also has its way by this. I think the world is a chaotic place that we try to control, but is what ultimately devours us. We *become* what we are, we arent born as persons.
But politically and socially, this has also defined history, where the first orphanages were created by christians who regard the sanctity of life as a fact, while infanticide (like abortion) was at least an observed occurance in pagan culture.
But here you see the split. One thinks of an eternal personal soul, but i see that we are self-created beings by our activity in the world. After death is gloomy hades, and so life is the bounty of the fortunate.
>The same happens when I realize that my opinions 'change' , I feel like I am a mere puppet of alien laws whilst being 'myself' at the same time.I would say that our personality (our "self") is destiny and these alien forces are the fates. We can choose to fulfill or betray our destiny, but in the end we will all still die.
>May I ask you, do you think a deaf person can enjoy music? Can a blind person enjoy poems?I suppose not, and thats why disability is such a curse and is truly a lesser form of life. Nature is vanity and its sensory seclusion is tragic.
No.1797259
>>1795814Brutus, Cassius and Judas are condemned to be mauled forever by Satan.
No.1797462
>>1796695>his actions destroyed a republic that had stood for hundreds of years Yeah, like Parenti points out, it's Caesar "destroying the Republic" by helping poor people and relieving the contradictions crushing Rome beneath their weight, not vicious tyrants like Sulla slaughtering everyone that wants modest reforms.
No.1797466
>>1797462Well I don't see anyone saying Sulla was good.
No.1797522
>>1796695>his actions destroyed a republic that had stood for hundreds of yearsRome was literally in a constant state of civil war and le Republican Traditions(tm) had already died with Sulla. Literally all Julius did was use the same office for popular reforms.
Moreover, the Republic didn't "die" - it was an oligarchy from the start, and the Empire was simply a consolidation of that power by certain aristocrats in the Senate.
>and from that point Rome basically slid downhill in terms of living conditions for the majority of peopleAugustus was responsible for the Pax Romana. He was quite literally one of the most successful rulers in human history. Julius's reforms earlier on played a part in this, such as the grain and tax reforms that would be picked up with Augustus's bureaucratic and financial reforms.
No.1797555
5 years from now bonapartists tankies will start denying the celtic genocide
No.1797888
>>1797243>I suppose not, and thats why disability is such a curse and is truly a lesser form of life. Nature is vanity and its sensory seclusion is tragic.Now, that's why I regard that we are subjected to the laws of an alien mediator in our state of life, that is some kind of materialism. In here, the 'material' is simply the sensation itself while the quality and quantity of the matter is not important. For me, soul or consciousness do not exist as an immateriality, but an abstract materiality as all creations of the history. As the sense of critical reason acts as an instrument to transcending itself to achieve the presupposed heaven of truth, it is at the same time limited by the qualititive nature of the instrument that forms a mediatiation between the 'truth' and 'self' , those instruments of intuitive quality perhaps create worldviews as you say, I'd also say that the instrument itself is not unrelated and independent to any other force. Just like how we said that a deaf person cannot experience music, human body appears to me as a collection of components which alters us. Not only the body, the nature which includes the body with 'the outer' as well. The absence of hearing negates the being of music, I can't bring up myself not to think that there is pre-determinism of the complex relations of productive forces.
When a christian theocrat and a mass murderer may argue, I'd keep my silence and not be able to pick a side. Perhaps both of them possess their different senses in their own spesific conditions.
No.1798000
>>1797555didn't happen but should've happened and they deserved it
No.1798538
>>1797888I agree completely about the determined aspect of our being, but that also doesnt denote "materialism" as an ontology. "Materialism" is overstated today; its an old concept that is only revived by marxists. To me, materialism begins and ends with the enlightenment, which is due to the legacy of german idealism, which marx borrows from in hegel too.
"Dialectical materialism" was not something formalised in marx and engels' works, and only became known from the state philosophy of the soviet union under stalin, the same way "leninism" was also defined as a doctrine by stalin.
The dialectical process of marx is still ideal in structure; of history fulfilling its own idea, which is the same to hegel. Marx's inversion of hegel only comes in the scientific analysis of agency, where he puts emphasis in the mass, and where hegel puts agency in an enlightened minority.
Also, the "matter" of materialism is very different in concept than what we see today, and so it is literally outdated, i would even say, with einstein's relativity (where the newtonian absolutism is the model of matter as a uniform structure).
The scientific idea of cosmic evolution to me gives Idea to its dialectical process, where we begin with physics, which turns to chemistry and ends in biology. Like hegel, i find the completeness of nature in its phenomena, and so find the fullness of "matter" in this self-movement towards life.
Neo-darwinists would say this is also true, in that life expresses the chaos of the universe, but i also think there is "idea" to the very meaning of reality in this way. To me, biology is the meaning of physics, the same way man is the meaning of nature.
politically and socially, materialism occupies the discourse of "neutrality" where it attempts to supersede our kantian subjectivity by positing the notion of an "objective" perspective that you are only allowed to argue with on the terms set by materialists. This is the strategy of both liberals and communists alike [the children of leftism] since it debases the primacy of the qualitative [by dialectical self-reference, or concrete totality] into the quantitative, "objective" gaze of "facts and logic" or "reason" or "science". Reason thus is set as an epistemology from which the neutral party speaks and all others are irrational. This is the basis of the parliamentary system for example, of dialog to reach common understanding, but has within it this implicit politics of "the neutral" which i totally disagree with. Theres nothing neutral about politics or even the truth. This is why i like ideological states rather than "secular" ones [since they pretend to not be ideological]. But here is my critique of rationality as an epistemology, which to me, is already prewritten with irrational causes, mainly morality. My point then is to see how materialism emerges as a cynical and ideological (in the zizekian sense, of attempting to overcome contradiction) discourse that simply codefies a leftist worldview within it. You'll notice for example that the high-minded anti-moralists also dont like it when you do things they [not so] secretly deem immoral. Psychoanalytically the point then is to overcome this "phallic" gesturing by being authentic, which is to draw away from the illusion of objectivity. No.1798580
>>1797522Good points. Ancient Rome was always an oligarchic system. Full stop. End of. The republican period was only "republican" because the two consuls - the officials acting as heads of state and government - were elected and stayed in office for a term of one year and they were barred from being re-elected straight away, while the mythological kings ruled for life and they were properly a monarchic - i.e. rule of one - kind of figure, but it has to be said that them too were elected. And btw, elective monarchies or other lifelong chieftainships in some eras and some places could be more common then hereditary ones, but that's another topic.
Also, "republican" institutions, conventions and traditions survived the institution of the "principality" - what we call the empire as having an emperor in power - with Augustus until the remaining western part of the empire was finally liquidated in the 5th century, but for the most part they only served ceremonial and symbolic functions. The real power struggle was between the Senate - and sometimes there were different senatorial factions fighting each other - and the emperors. Popular masses were for the most part manipulated by one or the other for their ends.
Getting back to the republican period, the Senate and the actual ruling classes always did whatever they could to stop consuls or other officials that showed excessive favour toward the poor and the dispossessed. Everyone know the story of the Gracchi brothers - both assassinated, one about a decade after the other - but other figures were relatively luckier: sometimes auspices just read some really nasty omen on the day a certain official had to be sworn in, so the guy got wind of the thing and renounced to get in office straight away.
Source: Roman born and living in Rome.
No.1798865
>>1795836Yeah I bet you know all about a ton of guys
No.1798898
>>1796695The Republic was already dead in its inability to enact social reforms. Gracchi brothers tried their best and destroyed republican norms trying.
No.1799124
>>1798580>Also, "republican" institutions, conventions and traditions survived the institution of the "principality" - what we call the empire as having an emperor in power - with Augustus until the remaining western part of the empire was finally liquidated in the 5th century, but for the most part they only served ceremonial and symbolic functions.Fun fact the Senate survived the 5th century collapse of the western empire. Odoacer was a short lived king who was quickly deposed by Theoderic. Theoderic ruled Italy with a consent of an eastern emperor and as a vassal of him (on paper, he was defacto autonomous). Because of that he kept the Roman institutions around. They were still around when Belisarius invaded Italy in 6th century. And I don't actually know when they were dissolved, probably by Longobards.
Unique IPs: 50