/edu/ - Education

thank you for your contribution to this board my friend

>>3656
phroo :DD

>>3656
Those war elephants were probably from a now extinct western subspecies of Asian elephant, or northern subspecies of African forest elephant.

Are elephants comrades?

>>3663
Of course.
We shall help them develop their brains and social minds until they are our equals.
Like dolphins
UPHOLD POSADAS

Doesn't copper oxidize, effectively having to be replaced every 10-20 years because it's surface wouldn't inactivate viruses anymore?

>>3614
i wonder if you could just sand/scruff the surface??

>>3614
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

>>1299
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

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?

>>3606
>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

>>3608
>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.

>>3609
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.

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.

>>3622
explains why my Iranian friends are pastier than most americans

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.

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 :
&ltIf 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.
&ltForm 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 themPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

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?

>>3612
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.

Just some theories from a straighto, pinch of salt is implied. I would assume the privellege associated with being male in a patriarchal society. Trans people are such outcasts that their ideology must be radical, and we know how society feels about women's sexuality.
Also no kids so they are more aligned with the ruling class because of the financial status it puts them in. I would guess lesbians are more likely to adopt and have higher emotional intelligence.

makes sense. I actually meant to post this in /leftypol/ and forgot I was browsing /edu/

It's really too bad that most gays dont realize that we're still oppressed. I don't think I've met a single cisgay man who was communist

As a fag I may have some insight. Gay men were very radical from the 60's to the AIDS crisis to DADT and other issues. The wealthy, white gay men that make up the Human Rights Campaign/LAMBDA Legal etc defanged the gay movement by promoting assimilation in the form of gay marriage, corporate wokeness/IDpol, and perpetuating the myth that gay men were all high-income DINKS that could be marketed to. In reality, there are more Gay men in poverty as a percentage than straight men. That is why today you see Goldman Sachs and Raytheon pride floats these days.

Now that gay marriage is legal and being fired for being gay is not (well…they can make any other excuse to fire you) the wealthy cis white gay man is entirely driven by class interests instead of fearing of being persecuted or dying of a horrific incurable disease now that PREP is widespread. So now you have out and wealthy iBankers, Lawyers, Techies, etc that have a class interest in keeping their status and mainstream Gay culture, in my opinion, is heavily focuses on looks, muscules, status, and income so it makes sense for them to not be radical but still pay lip service to social liberalism by going to pride parades and fundraising for Mayor Pete, who is the apotheosis of the neoliberal gay PMC.

Gayanon here. I've met plenty but I agree with this post >>3551

Also, the fact that radical politics is going to appeal more to people who are socially oppressed would explain why there are so many trans people in the mix, but I think they're also more of a visible minority while gay men at this point have kind of blended in somewhat. In terms of gay left-wing radicals online with some degree of visibility, I'm thinking of Matthijs Krul (a.k.a. McCaine) who wrote one of the best articles on Nazi Germany that I've read:

http://mccaine.org/2010/03/12/what-was-nazi-germany/

I don't know him, he lives in a completely different country, but he has a reading list that I also use personally.

http://mccaine.org/2012/11/02/a-communism-reading-list/

I think the descriptions of gay culture's petit-bourgeois pathologies ITT are very accurate. But I also really like aspects of culture like the music and entertainment side of the house:

https://youtu.be/E4SNXUM0X4A

>>1621
I’m reading on the Genealogy of morals right now, I have some questions.
>Nietzsche says he’s against egalitarianism that reduces men to common, and power = good because it started this way in history and they establish themselves as good solely through themselves. the weak have slave morality in that identifies its oppressors as evil then subsequently themselves as good.

What in the goddamn bootlicking bullshit is this? I somewhat looked fondly of Nietzsche before I actually read him. And the way he talks about race lmao
It really does explain the modern far right-incel mentality though. Should I keep reading or find something better?

>>3566
What’s your contextual history with the rest of the western cannon? The dude can seem really strange and extreme if you don’t understand the systems and theories his entire philosophy is railing against. Just like most philosophers, he has interesting points and is a product of his time. If you aren’t enjoying it or really getting it, then I’d set him aside for a while.

>>3566
>the weak have slave morality in that identifies its oppressors as evil then subsequently themselves as good
slave morality is a real thing and Marxists ought to oppose it. examples include christianity and pacifism

Has anyone read that critique by G. Lukacs?

>>3568
ik, it‘s just that out of the three masters of suspicions, his work is the most disappointing. More so o as I used to like him the most before I read any of them.
>>3575
>Who can guarantee that modern democracy, still more modern anarchy, and indeed that tendency to the "Commune," the most primitive form of society, which is now common to all the Socialists in Europe, does not in its real essence signify a monstrous reversion—and that the conquering and master race—the Aryan race, is not also becoming inferior physiologically?)
> Let us submit to the facts; that the people have triumphed—or the slaves, or the populace, or the herd, or whatever name you care to give them—if this has happened through the Jews, so be it! In that case no nation ever had a greater mission in the world's history. The 'masters' have been done away with; the morality of the vulgar man has triumphed. This triumph may also be called a blood-poisoning (it has mutually fused the races)—I do not dispute it; but there is no doubt but that this intoxication has succeeded.

Feels like a bunch of morality of power and nazi-babble. Also I feel like Marx already formulated his ideas but better with his theory on ideology & religion..