In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Has Luciom gotten into the Henry17 posts?
and anyway the Borgia claim was to suggest that western identity isn't only about boring, sad, castrating Christianity.
It's an odd example to use if you are trying to disentangle western identity from Christianity. I seem to remember that there was a bit of a connection between the Borgia family and the papacy.
It's an odd example to use if you are trying to disentangle western identity from Christianity. I seem to remember that there was a bit of a connection between the Borgia family and the papacy.
it's not odd because people think of the christian identity as following the bible and stuff (see gorgo comments on Christianity being mysoginistic because the bible).
while western identity is about power and greed and lust and individualism, with Christianity just one of the tool for the smart to achieve that.
ofc it's also about chivalry and creativity and cooperation.
and a bit of generosity when self-convenient
oh btw you remind me that a core element of western identity, since the Romans/Greeks, is that the masses need a set of moral rules different than the elites and that's the proper way to have a functioning society.
oh btw you remind me that a core element of western identity, since the Romans/Greeks, is that the masses need a set of moral rules different than the elites and that's the proper way to have a functioning society.
What you wrote above doesn't strike me as an obviously correct description of Ancient Greek philosophy.
What you wrote above doesn't strike me as an obviously correct description of Ancient Greek philosophy.
Greek philosophy embraced all ranges of options in a very wide ranging excursion to the (at the time?) unknown.
you almost have all bases covered for any tastes basically there.
but I was talking Greek society. And Roman mostly.
The "the rich and powerful live completly different lives than all others and that's ok" ethos.
And just the decadent Romans who brought about the fall. Not the decent people like Marcus Aurelius.
sure, the 5k-10k most powerful people in Rome while Aurelius was emperor lived under the same set of moral rules the butchers did (lol no they didn't).
check Attic Nights by Gellius (contemporary of Aurelius) about how society was
sure, the 5k-10k most powerful people in Rome while Aurelius was emperor lived under the same set of moral rules the butchers did (lol no they didn't).
check Attic Nights by Gellius (contemporary of Aurelius) about how society was
To a considerable degree, I think you are confusing hypocrisy made possible by wealth with something more profound.
To a considerable degree, I think you are confusing hypocrisy made possible by wealth with something more profound.
no as an Italian I think I can understand when it's about a fake hypocrisy everyone knows is actually normal.
it's like when homosexuality wasn't accepted here normally BUT if it was about rich people, it was acceptable eccentricity.
there is a profound difference in the anglo victorian (or Confucian Chinese) ethos of elites actually believing the **** they say to a large degree, and Roman/southern Mediterranean "we obviously know how things actually work and as long as I can get by it's fine" ethos.
it's like marital infidelity in France/Italy (which wasn't even a negative for a politician even 50 years ago) vs the USA/UK
How is he able to have every other post in multiple threads, each longer than most posters would ever type?

