/lit/ - Literature

>>3741763
in addition to
>>3741776
Try Burrough's Barsoom books - the first planetary romances. Tarzan is good. 'Doc' Smith's Lensman books are space opera OF DOOM!

>>3739413
Neither. The continuation of traditional social institutions can be reactionary or contemporary.

>>3740543
Actually, graduated from Seabury-Western Seminary and had a fellowship at Harvard.
Either way, and?

>>3735422
1) you are moving the goal posts. The first claim was
>no one wrote about it for decades
Since this is patently false you are now claiming
>it wasn't historically important enough to make the bible
The bible is not a collection of *historically* important works, it is a collection of works important for *salvation* and *theology*.

>>3735393
>I have the internet
No, you are reading wikipedia.
I am an actual theologian and, as a reputable religious scholar (atheists or religious) the references to the Didache and its writings made in disparate locations by the time of 100 A.D. means that it must have been well known and widespread by about 50-60 A.D. at latest (otherwise, how could the earliest ante-Nicene fathers and Epistles quote so much of it?).
Indeed, the wiki points out that 'most scholars' bit.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary and Commentary, edited by Dr. Freedman, is *the* definitive source on the bible and his associated works include the Didache. He dated it to about 40 A.D. That's a few years after

>>3735390
1) using the wiki?
2) canonicity is irrelevant since the bible was collected to present books important for salvation, not as an encyclopedic accumulation of Christian writings
3) and what about all the rest?

>>3735337
>>3735300
>>3735281
Yes, both are bildungsroman works, thus share a lot of similarities and tend to reflect the emotional attitudes of young people - since that is what they are largely about.

>>3735377
A lot of Zoroastrian works, especially the esoteric, is quite good.

>>3735343
>>no one bothers to write about except decades after he dies
Well, except for the Didache, which was written within a few years.
And some of the Epistles, which were written soon after, as well.
And the Epistle of Clement
etc.

>>3735211
You actually posted this on /lit/

>>3734608

By whom?

>>3731683
The Whisperer in the Darkness

>>3718833
Hans-Herman Hoppe.
He is a great example mainly because he often clearly shows that A is true, then tries to justify why B (the Libertarian position) is still preferable to A

>>3711831
Summa Theologica Q.83
or Aristotle.

>>3711012
>not quite sure what you're driving at here.
From Feudal Japan to Rome, from Feudal Europe to Asia the values of the warrior classes (courage, honor, duty, etc.) going into decline were often associated with the culture as a whole going into decline. The Western Roman Empire recognized this. From the Caliphate to the various Chinese dynasties, you can see similar patterns.
I am drawing a very light parallel between that and the elevation of non-violence to a moral superiority. Even Ghandi admitted that non-violence is not always the best solution nor the most moral one.

>>3710999
you keep admitting that the warrior class was not the lower class again and again as if it obviated my point.

>>3710894
>The plebs got conscripted and did the actual fighting, though
Your point being what, exactly? That the lower classes did sometimes fight for themselves? And was this conscription universal? (tip - it wasn't).
Further, your analysis of military history is flawed - while modern militaries may seem smaller, that is only in comparison with the vast conscripted armies of the Napoleonic Era - early 20th Century. In, say, the Italian city-states there really were no standing armies, just guards and mercenaries.
Further, the impact on civilians *grew* with the advent of modern bombing and the concept of 'strategic military targeting'. In some earlier eras everything from common sense to the laws of the Church forbade such now-common practices as destroying water supplies to civilians or the specific targeting of non-combatant cities to inflict civilian casualties on purpose.
You also seem to have lost the thread of the discussion. OP is comparing the use of violence with being 'low class'. I am pointing out the fact that you readily admit - violence has historically been the prerogative of the higher classes.
Or, in simpler terms, I wasn't saying that only the wealthy fought, I was pointing out that the combatant class is traditionally upper class, not lower.

>>3710865
And I remember the first time I read him, too. How is that relevant?

>>3706072
warfare is the flowering of manhood. Indeed, historically the primary difference between the lower classes and the upper classes is that the upper classes fought - the 'plebs' did not.
I think it may be a testament to how far culture has fallen that now the lower-classes' avoidance of conflict is elevated to the status it has.

>>3693814
And your point is what, exactly? Are you claiming that theology doesn't provide a framework for higher concepts such as justice, mercy, weal, etc? Do you deny that theology provides existential solutions which allow people to ground their daily lives in higher concepts?
Or do you think that all adherents of a particular philosophy are all supremely insightful with no one cleaving to it out of blindness?

>>3693665
see
>>3693805

>>3693631
I was far from alone; others before and after discussed their careers, aspirations, writing goals, etc.

>>3693672
But that doesn't match the reality we see around us.
Philosophy and theology directly impact our lives and our work in myriad ways. And religion and philosophy flourish amongst the poor and the downtrodden because the mind needs these higher ideas *more* when times are hard. Indeed, the soft living of elites is often mirrored in soft thinking.
Philosophy is about reality - exposure to reality just makes it more concrete.

>>3693612
What are you trying to say? That philosophy is only academic, or that the cares of the working world erase all forms of higher thought from one's mind? Something else?