/lit/ - Literature

whoa... i'm going to start listening to "the dirtbag left" and make my son a tranny now

>>15746200
oh boy more gay vaporwave “retvrn” shit

Damn you got me. Wtf I’m a feminist now.

>>15746211
OP is making fun of thise memes, though.

The decadent stage of ancient civilizations doesn't reflect it's state during it's entire existence. But they suffered degeneracy and collapse too, it's true, but these are well documented to us so we can stave off such an end. They had to learn the hard way, we don't necessarily need to, unless you believe in some irrevocable Darwinism of societies, and the decadent stage just happens no matter what. Perhaps we are at the late stages, and there's nothing, not even knowledge our very end, that can't prevent it.
Not /lit/ related though, go back to twitter.

>>15746200
This. The ancient Greeks definitely would have voted for Biden.

>>15746200
Modern society is the most degenerate society to ever exist. Even the most degenerate periods of previous eras seem tame in comparison. There was no equivalent to unashamed diaper furries even in the worst periods of Rome or Greece. Modern technology is what is producing this.

>>15746200
The issue is that post-modernity is even more degenerate than tradition.

>>15746263
Capital T "Tradition" is a post-modern concept.

Civilizations have cycles of decadence intertwined with periods of glory and honor. That's why those gay greek niggers got raped by Romans and why Romans got raped by based "Barbarians".

>>15746200
>past civilizations were far more degenerate
No one is implying that degeneracy isn't/hasn't been coming in waves

>implying the tradition people refer to isn’t the synthesis of medieval European culture with Classical culture.

>>15746261
That's subjective, but you're clearly under the influence of selection bias. Yeah you've seen wild shit contemporary that's triggered you, but there's no reason to assume classical antiquity was any less wild.
>no equivalent to unashamed diaper furries
I'd say a packed arena watching a literal bull rape a convict trumps retards in diapers
Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Bestiality

>>15746353
>I'd say a packed arena watching a literal bull rape a convict trumps retards in diapers
I honestly have to disagree.

>>15746353
What was physical was less degenerate as it was still grounded in reality to some extent. Technology has enabled a larger consumption of very specific degenerate pathologies. The transexual shit in general is really a sign of this. Sure you had gays, crossdressers, and eunuchs back then, but it was not the same level of fetishization, and it was still considered shameful. If you were a bottom, you didn't want people to know, but now degenerates not only feel no shame but in fact feel morally superior for it.

>>15746368
To be more specific, the level of sexual fantasy was still very tied to physical reality. Things like inflation porn were not really possible back then.

Because I’m heterosexual

>>15746200
Pic related says 'Why' loud and clear, no?

>>15746210
>>15746211
>>15746225
^ Sarcastic fagboys who take it up the ass and worship Mishima on the reg.

>>15746200
>when the past civilizations were far more degenerate?
Wrong, also, how the fuck do you equate modernity with all of Christendom you literal retard baiter???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Someone please elucidate me on the meaning of ‘degenerate’. Isn’t it theoretically possible that a society is striving and allows sexual freedoms in various forms? Also, some theoretical sources would be nice.

>>15746200
I hate this post-Christian societal morality where we have to act like self-sacrificing christians but instead of god telling us to be nice it's just angry and hypocritical self-righteous rich cunts. I hate how you have to be for or against something and people don't have a notion of literally not caring, not even being a retard centrist "hurr durr both sides are somewhat right" but just not caring and not even thinking about it. I couldn't care less if faggots fucked anus or women licked pussy just stop talking about it on social media and news, I just want to watch some qt saying shit about the weather and some nerd in his 40s talk about how the economy's doing ffs.

>>15746200
>someone somewhere on the isle of Shitholos perhaps made gay porn pots
>ergo all of Ancient Hellas was fag central
I can't imagine what archeologists of the Fourth Millenium will think of our society now...

>>15746612
a society of weak ass narcissitic hedonistic niggerlovers obsessed with sex who stand for nothing except shallow slogans

>>15746200
Nice fake art you retard. There were literally NO mentions of penetrative sex in Ancient greece between males anywhere

>>15746200
>highly misogynistic and racist society in which I can suck big cocks as a twink then fuck boipucci when I’m grown up all without modern liberal values and so misogyny and racism are acceptable
βασίζεται και ξαναγεμίζεται
Also, past civilisations have never been as degenerate as the modern west outside of the occasional hedonistic nobleman/emperor. Ancient Greece wasn’t even particularly approving of homosexuality for the most part, certainly not philosophers like Plato.

>>15746200
>>15746226
>>15746261
>>15746263
>>15746292
>>15746368
>degenerate
>degeracy
The literal buzzwords of the brainlet. What society of the past would be better than ours? Any of the societies where people where dying of the common cold or where infant mortality rate was around 50%? Where your aryan-woman-in-wheatfields kind of wife was more likely to die of childbirth than anything else? Where chance was, if you were poor, you'd just fucking starve to death in Europe?
>muh ancient values!
Which ones? The ones held by that infinitesimal part of the population who was rich and well-fed enough and didn't die in the first ten years of life? Taking those values for granted is like taking the life of a guy who became a millionaire by winning at the lottery like fifteen times in a row. That's not a life I'd take as a model for my own.

You guys act as if this society was a derailment out of the rail of history, and have no idea of the philosophical work you'd need to do to even begin justifying that idea. How the fuck would nature produce an innatural society? Don't you see that if you think like that you basically reduce life to the plot of a marvel movie, where you need to introduce some "evil" forces basically bending reality backwards?
Isn't it way simpler, instead of having to put on a giant metaphysical system, to just kindly acknowledge that the world is kind of okay, and that the real problem is in your head and in your inability to adapt to an ever-changing reality? Why do you corner yourself into indefeasible philosophical positions, appear ridicolous online and in real life by transforming your personal flaws into metaphysical flaws? Grow the fuck up. Learn to accept things as they are. There are no perfect kingdoms on earth. There have never been. This one we are living right now is, possibly, the most prosperous, less death-ridden historical period recorded in human history. Yes, future looks bleak and we are facing big crises, but you know, back in the days when there was a pandemic they just prayed jesus and let one third of the population die. I feel like it's way better to live in a "degenerate world" where we don't fucking die all the time.

>>15746353
>Damnatio ad bestias (Latin for "condemnation to beasts") was a form of Roman capital punishment in which the condemned person was killed by wild animals, usually lions or other big cats. This form of execution, which first came to ancient Rome around the 2nd century BC, was part of the wider class of blood sports called Bestiarii.

Retard, fucking read instead of skimming through it. And don't just read on wikipedia, read only from primary sources. I've seen so many secondary sources on Wikipedia about history, and when you actually go to them they offer no source for where they got their claim for, or even worse cite themselves as the source. Unironically enough this ALWAYS only happens when they try to claim degeneracy happened in history, its actually really hillarious. Only the worst of tyrants in Ancient greece and Ancient rome engaged in degeneracy, and it was used as the worst of all political insults. Those tyrants deluded themselves into thinking they were gods not mortals and could thus engage in it, when the acts of Gods were made not to be replicated by mortals, or they feel into complete insanity because they weren't fit to lead and it corrupted them, e.g. Caligula

>>15746736
shut up retard

>>15746736
Augustus was the greatest roman leader there was, and you wanna know the reason why he was and why he's the only reason the empire lasted as long as it did despite the decadent emperors that popped up in between? Because he laid a rock-solid foundation based on public morality and restored the family unit

>>15746736
>Which ones?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_maiorum

>>15746736
>>>/reddit/

>>15746736
>blah nlah naturalistic fallacy blah blah
Society is organic -- a decadent society is like an obese man, engorging himself in nihilism and debauchery and excess individualism. Yes, it is "natural", but the collapse of said societies is also natural, and hint, that happens becase their populations are bloated and rotten in the soul and fall prey to outside forces of strong civilizations

>>15746200
the difference you plebeian is that it was disdained and punished instead of praised and encourage by the culture

>>15746200
Degenerated from what?

>>15746785
EvolutionarIly successful biologically profitable behaviour

>>15746749
>rock-solid foundation based on public morality and restored the family unit
Guess we can overlook slavery, slave killing being allowed, slave rapes, praying Asclepius to get healthy from illnesses instead of having actual doctors, women being essentially just housewives, oh and good luck being a christian in the immediate afterwards of the empire! The Romans loved religious sects! Surely much better than today.
Again, to live well under the Roman empire you must have won the lottery like a thousand times by: not being born a woman, not being born poor, nor being born a barbarian, not being born a slave, not being born in a shitty province, not being born with any physical defect, weakness or vulnerability to illness in order to not be in the half of the children dying before becoming adults. How many of you actually believe they would qualify for any of this? You guys are like those hippies who think they are always reincarnations of famous people instead of, which is way more probable, some random farmer who died stomped by someone else's horse. You should thank whatever made up guenonian divinity you believe in for being allowed to be alive today. Now go ride your tigers

>>15746200
degeneracy sounds so much fun lol
the more people talk about it, the more I want to do it.
I gotta expand my experiences desu

>>15746736

Your criticism doesn't make any sense.

If you valuate societies based on survivability then, yes, modernity is obviously the best but there is more to life than basic self-sustainment and living past a decennia.

I agree that there has never been a perfect society and there most likely will never be one, but it is fair to critique the draw backs of current society without having to fixate on the fact that we have a better and more egalitarian health care.

Many humans would rather live a 30-years life full of extreme sentimens, hardship, tragedy and disease than a 80-year life with flatted emotions, periods of extreme boredom, excessive acces to digital sex and fatty foods.

>>15746769
Agreed. Now go on and proceed in building an argument on why this society is decadent compared to the previous ones.

>>15746736
>prayed to Jesus
>let a third die
Holy based, that’s far better than praying to scientists and letting this culling opportunity go to waste

>>15746802
>Guess we can overlook slavery, slave killing being allowed, slave rapes, praying Asclepius to get healthy from illnesses instead of having actual doctors, women being essentially just housewives, oh and good luck being a christian in the immediate afterwards of the empire! The Romans loved religious sects!
Yes, exactly we can

Now stop being stupid and read Industrial society and its future and The Technological Society by Ellul to get an idea of why the modern world is no better. To get started in understanding it, at least. And then next read Simulacra and Simulation. Have fun!

>>15746799
But Athens was at its greatest when pedestry was part and parcel of aristocrat life and the Roman Empire lasted for hundreds of years after the excesses of Caligula and Tiberius.

>>15746802
And fyi slaves in the ancient world werent' what you think they were through your post-modern view of reality. They were part of the household, could be educated, could be freed and if they were freedmen their children could be full citizens. And it obviously depended on WHAT they were slaves for

>>15746820
Some slaves of course had exactly that kind of life, like the Athenians captured in Syracuse or the farm labourers described by Cato's.

>>15746819
Pedastry was a mentor-student relationship, nothing more, and promoted brotherhood. There were NO depections or mentions of sex between males in Athens or ANYWHERE in Greece for that matter, and every men was expected to get married and have children. The population of Athens viewed what we would today called homosexuality as negative, and this was before all abrahamic religion, because it was unnatural. This is proved in Plato's Apologies

And here's an excerpt from Plato's Laws
>"And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. And we all accuse the Cretans of concocting the story about Ganymede.
The story of Ganymede was used as justification of pedastry and the homoeroticism of some aristocrats, and even only that was viewed negatively. Ganymede was the cupbearer of the gods according to Cretan mythology, and there was nothing erotic nor sexual about it

>>15746736
>>15746802
How is this relevant? No is arguing for bringing back the roman empire, or doing away with modern medicine, etc.

>>15746200
Or I could just take the good stuff from the past and combine it with the good stuff from the present.

>>15746230
>The decadent stage of ancient civilizations doesn't reflect it's state during it's entire existence.
Nope but it's a product of its flaws.
>Perhaps we are at the late stages, and there's nothing, not even knowledge our very end, that can't prevent it.
You can prevent it with proper planning, a good enough team, and instructions for the future.

>>15746805
That's not the only point. You have access to more information than ever. You have all the means for material and spiritual self-improvement none of the people in other societies had. You are allowed to speak against more governments and you don't have to be afraid of people who are more powerful than you.
Rome was build upon clientelary systems, which means anyone needed to be inserted in a network with some patrician on top protecting your interests. This is how much it sucked to be a Roman. IF you survived long enough to be a functional adult (and were a man) then and only then you still had to lick someone's ass for most of the time in order to even hope to have a decent life.

>boredom vs. hardship, tragedy and death
People who make this argument have usually never faced death. Boredom fucking sucks and I agree it's a problem with our society, but I can assure you that the vast majority of humans would value being alive rather than live in a world where if you cut yourself with rusted steel you need to cut away your arm. There's nothing romantic in how easy it was to die before the 1900s. Most of those deaths were not just glorious deaths. Most deaths were: you get a cold, you die. You fall from your horse, you die. You cut yourself with rusted steel, you die. A dog bites you, you get rabies, you die. You are hungry, you eat some poisoned berries, you die. You walk around, a snake bites you, you die.
Where is the extreme sentiment, hardship and tragedy, in all this? What do you find romantic against dying randomly for the stupidest reasons? Most of this stuff is way less likely to happen today.
Boredom is something you are allowed to feel only because you are not starving, or dying of an illness, or having to work your ass off dying at thirty for plowing a fucking field. Access to digital sex may be bad, but still better than getting siphilis after having sex once and then die. Or not having sex at all and never seeing a naked woman because, again, you just fucking died in the most random, stupid way. Fatty foods? Today you can choose to eat shit and you can choose to eat healthy. In most societies before ours, it was already difficult to find food, let it be find good ones. Do you think ancien people were eating better, "more natural" stuff? Plato was fucking traumatized by the banquets in Sicily from how much shit they were eating back then. Plus, you had no dietary knowledge of any kind.
You are weightining the material benefits of living in today's world against a romanticized and unrealistic depiction of how the past was. Anyone who has knowledge of history would know that past societies were, for the most part, horrible. Does this mean there was no wisdom or no things we can learn from them? Absolutely not. Smart people were born even in ancient times, and there's much to learn from them. Should we, however, go back to live to feudal, ancient Greek, or ancient Roman imperial society? Fuck no.

>>15746612
Degeneracy is just vice in a grander scale. Read Aristotle then Aquinas.

>>15746864
>You have access to more information than ever.
Paralysis by analysis, the human mind was never made to endure this sort of informational bombardment. You have a lot to read. Hyperreality will be the death of our civilisation. Want recommendations? You argue like me when I was unironically 13

>>15746736
>What society of the past would be better than ours?
1950's America except that the conservatives didn't die in the war so the US doesn't get zogged.

>>15746855
In that case you assume that all these part are disconnected and one can just 'choose' which parts to implement into society.

In reality the 'degenerate' parts are infrangibly connected with the 'better' parts, better healthcare, medication, etc, is connected to greater wealth due to among other things capitalism and greater individual freedom. Capitalism and greater freedom easily gravitates towards accessibility to excessive hedonistic pleasures.

>>15746877
>is connected to greater wealth due to among other things capitalism and greater individual freedom.
>he thinks this is a good thing

.........
Freedom of speech exists only to replace freedom of thought and the mind, we are afraid of hearing ourselves. We are sacrificing our very being because we think infinite economic growth and infinite information is possible. Literally Faust on a civilisational scale, but much worse

>>15746809
>Yes exactly, we can
your imagination really falls short if you think you'd not be one of the millions dying randomly

>>15746820
I know all this stuff. I also know that you could piss and use their hair to clean your hand, that beating them and torturing them was not a crime, as it was not a crime raping them or killing them.
Now, you can say whatever you want on today's working conditions being similar to serfdom, but at least your boss can't fucking rape you or kill you without consequences. The only loss I'd have is economical. But you know what? Today I'm drunk and in a bad mood, I beat you up with a stick, rape you in the ass, and then kill you. Tomorrow, I lost some money, but life goes on as ever. If that's not better in your head, I honestly don't know what to say.
>but only muh niggers were slaves
Fuck no. If you had debts you could be sold as a slave. Good luck maintaining that sweet NEETdom in the Roman world

>>15746882

Lmao, I put 'better' and 'degenerate' in apostrophes exactly because it is not clear cut it is actually better or worse.

>>15746887
>your imagination really falls short if you think you'd not be one of the millions dying randomly

I am not living in the past nor the future, I don't have the intention in mind of time travelling, only you do. You conflate the past with history

>>15746877
>In reality the 'degenerate' parts are infrangibly connected with the 'better' parts
>if you want a Republican form of government you also need gay pedos
Hmmm, not buying it. Where's your proof that the entire society is inextricably linked? I'm just gonna take the good stuff and remove the bad, and there's nothing you can do to stop me.

>>15746855
that's exactly what post-modern is lmfao

>tfw you are not allowed to improve society because the romans had slaves

>>15746887
>Today I'm drunk and in a bad mood, I beat you up with a stick, rape you in the ass, and then kill you.
Nobody did anything like that, the pater familias was held to a moral standard, its the reason censors existed since the conception of the republic until the collapse of the empire

>>15746871
The fact that today we have a problem with data organization does not take away the fact that knowing more is better than being ignorant. You can say whatever you want about the chaotic organization of our knowledge today, but you still cannot argue against the fact that it improved the material living conditions of most humans more than it ever happened in history. How precisely do you argue against that?
You are basically arguing that an illiterate farmer in the middle ages whose system of knowledge is the bible (as explained to him by the local priest who barely knows latin) is in a BETTER epistemological position than a confused guy sitting in front of google? Is this what your are saying? If yes, please elaborate. I want to know more.

this conversations is really good but i gotta go to the baths enjoy myself and get fellated by some twink
goodbye, modern losers...read the bible! lmfao

>>15746875
Still the modern world though. Also good luck being black back then. Or a woman.

>>15746907
>the material living conditions
>material
>being a materialist

I see now what Baudrillard meant when he said we can't conceive of reality outside the signs and signifiers that the hyperreality of consumerism gives us

>>15746895
Post-modern takes the bad stuff from modernity and adds even more retardation from today, ignoring all of history before Descartes.

>>15746911
>Also good luck being black back then. Or a woman.
Both are actually better than they are today. Anyone who says otherwise is a propagandist.

>>15746891
I am not interested in time travel either. I am just saying that all it takes to refute the claim "past societies were better than ours" is the simple mental experiment of imagining living there as a commoner, which is what the great majority would have been anyway, and compare the standards of living of a commoner in any past society with the standard of living of a commoner today. Most times, it fucking sucks to live in the past

>>15746898
Of course they did. Have you read any of the actual literature from ancient times, or do you just skim read Evola for sport? Fucking read the texts. Read how this people lived. The pater familias was SUPPOSED to be held at a moral standard, but he had right of life and death upon slaves, wife and children.
Imagine your father deciding you should die because you fail a school, or do something he doesn't or agree with. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for once.

>>15746919
lol you clearly don't know what post-modern is
lurk more

>>15746864

Very good point Anon, thank you for enlightening me on this subject, I think that indeed I have/had a bit of a romantic view on the past. Do you recommend some books for having a better understanding of the living conditions of ancient times?

In reaction to your 'you have acces to more information than ever', the idea that we can do virtually everything we want I would say the following. First of all, it is extremely difficult to do something if there is little intrinsic or extrinsic pressure. Having all the resources in the world can feel like having none of them, one is overloaded with possibility. This brings me to my next point. Never has there been a historical epoch with such high levels of possibility-anxiety, meaning that the individual can choose from so many paths. One could argue that the human psyche is in no way fit to live a life where it has to face the pressure of choosing between an infinite amount of possible choices on an relatively extreme frequency. Atleast an individual was a farmer in the past without a doubt, now an individual is born a farmers son and is being told he should strive for the stars giving him immense amount of anxiety.

I think my general point is that with all the 'room for self-improvement' we are always chained by our society and most individuals, because we are humans, will gravitate towards the easy pleasures of life. Imagine locking a young individual up in a brothel with horny girls that are naked all the time while telling him there is a library with Shakespeare in the next room. Although the individual is intellectually inclined would he really go for the self-enlightenment path? As Schopenhauer said, the genitilia and the mind are diametrically opposed.

>>15746939
Uh oh you exposed yourself as a brainlet pseud...

>>15746894
You yourself can obviously take the what-you-deem-to-be-good-parts of society and leave out the what-you-deem-to-be-bad-parts, but society in its whole is inextricably linked to ALL its parts.

Easy example: freedom of internet allows us greater knowledge i.e. freebooks, wiki, but also greater knowledge of 'degeneracy' i.e. porn-websites, etc.

Sure, you say, lets ban all the degenerate websites and sources and leave the good sources. Alright, we ban porn, /b/... do we ban de Sade? do we ban Bukowski?

>>15746938
I never read Evola, I read actual primary sources from the Roman times

>>15746913
I like your buzzwords, but I am not a materialist at all. I believe that the value of life is mostly in spiritual and intellectual research, but I am not as stupid as the people who believe one can engage in studying philosophy and exploring the meaning of life without having the material means to do so. Nor where the ancients. Plato claimed that you need lots of free time to practice philosophy, which is something, he acknowledged, only aristocrats (or poor people with aristocratic friends, like Socrates) could afford to do. In the Nichomachean ethics Aristotle claims that health and material goods are not conditions of happiness, but that they are greatly helpful nonetheless, as it is way more difficult to practice philosophy and be virtuous if, again, you are fucking starving. And even the Stoics, who held their sage to the highest and most unrealistic standards, while not making material goods and health necessary conditions for happiness, held that they were nonetheless desirable.
Satisfying your material needs is a good starting point to dedicate yourself to spiritual needs. Even now you are probably here discussing with me because you are not starving or dying, because if you were, you'd probably be trying to fix those problems first, I imagine.

>>15746966
I am not advocating for asceticism of any kind, nor am I saying material things are not needed because they very obviously are, this is something all ascetics will agree on

>Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

>>15746230
>>15746279
lol why do retards always bring up this 'decadent stage' shit when the homosexuality was present during practically every epoch, including its golden ages. if anything opinion turning against it was associated with decline.

>>15746991
Homosexuality was never accepted at any point in all of human history until the 21st century

>>15746923
Must have been amazing being friend of all those whites after centuries of segregation. I bet they were all willing to accept their new black friends in schools, bathrooms, the front of bussess, etc.
Oh and yes, marrying at 20 and being a housewive until you die is basically all women ever wanted, I guess.

>>15746995
Have you ever read the ancients?

>>15746998
Yes. Have you?

>And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. And we all accuse the Cretans of concocting the story about Ganymede.

>>15746996
>oh no I can't join all-white clubs how horrible
>oh no I'm forced to be a NEET instead of slaving away for Mr. Shekelberg at half price due to an oversaturated workforce

>>15747002
Yes? Plato was a radical, not a representative of the conservative status quo opinion. Hence his opprobrium against Homer, et al.

>>15746842
This is some 1900s introduction to Plato level cope. The Symposium alone is enough to indicate there was a sexual element to many of these relationships.

>>15746988
I am not a materialist in the sense that I hold material things as more important than spiritual things, nor am I a materialist in the sense that I believe in materialistic monism.
Please expand on what past way of life you believe is best that does not involve having at least part of your materialistic needs satisfied in a way that contemporary society can clearly do better.

>>15746995
Weird that they'd put this stuff on the vases they had all around the house, then... Really makes you think

>>15746200
Define "degeneracy". Western society kinda stagnant, yes, but definetly not degenrative.

>>15747017
There was no author that accepted it. Zoroastrianism banned homosexual practices far before any abrahamic religion

In Plato's Apology Athenian commoners are disgusted by it. What we conceive of today as homosexuality was always viewed as vile and repulsive, and it was NEVER even nearly as widespread
>>15747021
Erotic, not sexual dumbass. And even that was looked down upon.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.%20Laws%20636&lang=original
Not to mention that anything resembling that between adults did not exist
>>15747035
Nice fake vase painting from the 1990s anon. Simple reverse image search proves its fake

>>15747002
Cherrypicking from the Laws, which was famously edited by Philip of Opuntes. Read the Lysis, the Symposium or the Phaedrus you absolute midwit. Plato was so gay there are literal poems from him to his gay lovers.

>>15746200
/lit/ - literature

>>15747015
It's the fact of being forced to do stuff by social pressure that fucking sucks. I guess you don't like people telling you what to believe or what kind of life you should live. I don't understand what kind of mental failure stops you from imagining that this would suck even if you were a woman or a black man.

>>15747059
>what is a *PLATO*NIC relationship

LOL. you fucking retard

>>15747056
I never said it wasn't looked down upon outside of a narrow milieu but you can't be naive enough to believe that those desires weren't acted out, especially in an unequal relationship like that.

>>15746963
It would take a massive societal overhaul, but in theory every part of society would be in its ideal state. Thus something such as pornography wouldn't even be sought after because each individual wouldn't seek it out, and most people wouldn't make it.
Of course even if the vast majority of society were good and shamed evil, there would still be evil people out there. Thus there needs to be contingencies against those who would do evil. Basically it would all be really complex, but doable. I could write a treatise sometime.

>>15747070
Oh I agree they were and existed, never said they didn't. If it can be thought of, it could be manifested. Never argued otherwise. I'm arguing that it was against the cultural zeitgeist, which it very clearly was, at every point in human history up until now

>>15747056
Anon arguing that homosexuality was not okay in ancient Greek is literal intellectual suicide, it's like claiming that the Church did nothing wrong through history. Please stop

>>15747080
>pornography wouldn't even be sought after because each individual wouldn't seek it out
Nice tautology.

It wouldn't need a social overhaul it would need a totalitarian system that forces their conception of good and bad upon their citizens which in itself already diminishes freedom of thought and behavior.

I'm open to the idea that it might be possible but in no way you're describing it.

>>15747056
Guess they're just helping the guy lay down here

>>15747067
Except Plato never called it like that and the definition was invented in the Reinaissance by christian authors such as Ficino, trying to downplay the evident homosexual tones of many dialogues.
But I guess that's not important

>>15747101
It wasn't pure homosexuality as it is today, but more
>I will trade you knowledge and skill if you'll be my twink femboy gf for a few years
Basically they thought traps weren't gay.

>>15746965
Care to elaborate on which ones, and where precisely did you get the idea that living as a slave is in any way "not that bad"?

>>15747080
>each individual wouldn't seek it out
You want to create robots? Even if you succeed, in the endgame it will be a bunch of sexually repressed sufferers.

OH DID SOMEONE SAY 1000 BC?

>"Ahura Mazda answered: 'The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva; this one is the man that is a worshipper of the Daevas, that is a male paramour of the Daevas, that is a female paramour of the Daevas, that is a wife to the Daeva; this is the man that is as bad as a Daeva, that is in his whole being a Daeva; this is the man that is a Daeva before he dies, and becomes one of the unseen Daevas after death: so is he, whether he has lain with mankind as mankind, or as womankind."
http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd8sbe.htm

This is from the vendidad

>>15746736
You realize that because the infant morality rate has decreased we are slowly becoming stupider, weaker, skicker (mentally and physically) and less spiritual due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations right?

>>15747056
waaaaait a sec... are those guys?

>>15747103
Sorry I didn't mean to say it that way. I mean people as individuals, as opposed to society as a whole, wouldn't WANT to seek out pornography because it wouldn't enhance their lives in any way (this would come from both moral education and internal dialogue so that they understand the truth).
And no, if in fact the Good is the Good then people would be able to figure it out on their own. The problem is that they know but choose to do the bad anyway. In an ideal society they would choose the good and we would have different strategies to deal with those who didn't.

>>15747107
Another fake
>>15747101
Literally read Against Timarchus

>>15747129
I'm really curious where you're getting these fakes from. They're unironically fake anon, I hope you know that. I cannot find a single source confirming their authenticity

>>15747056
Plato's symposium begins with Socrates lusting over another lads abs, then halfway through the party Alcibiades waltzes into the party and laments that, despite his numerous attempts at seduction, Socrates hasn't fucked him yet.

>>15747065
Freedom vs. security is an issue but most of the time jobs are only there because you need money to survive. Being black wasn't actually all that bad, especially if you didn't commit any crimes. Being a woman is the bigger issue since the amount of jobs you could do is limited, and if there weren't any suitable mates nearby then you were out of luck.
But objectively the good outweighs the bad. You COULD make an argument that the 90's (barring the retarded race rioting) were a tad bit superior but it really comes down to nitty gritty at that point.

>>15747115
>for a few years
There were famous cases of lovers staying together their whole lives. Epaminondas got buried with his male lover. Spartans were so gay that for their wedding women had to cut their hair short and let themselves be fucked from behind from how much their husbands preferred boys to them. There's so much evidence is ridicolous to argue that they were not homosexuals. The only allowed questions is whether they'd like better to fuck each other in the ass or between the tights

>>15747134
>The problem is that they know but choose to do the bad anyway.
It is their choice, isn`t it? You can`t create "ideally spiritual human" and because of that, you will need to restrict their free will anyway.

>>15747145
>Cannot find a single source confirming their authenticity
That's called argument ex silentio, anon, and though you may believe it's the name of a harry potter spell, it's actually a logical fallacy

>>15747155
Mostly anomalies. The Spartan stuff just seems like autism more than proof that they're gay. Some people like tomboys, so what?

>>15747148
They were literally all drunk as fuck, and you're over-exaggerating

>>15746200
wrong board >>>/his/

>>15747135
>Against Timarchus
How about you read it? Because the text is clearly condemning selling your body, not being having male lovers in general

>>15747158
Yeah, some people are born with more of a propensity for evil, and there needs to be planning against them. Things like laws, shaming, and other punishments which will deter aberrant behavior. But the best thing would be if most people do good things for its own sake.

>>15747173
Socrates is proverbially immune to being drunk, and Alcibiades wasn't drunk when trying to seduce Socrates. He's drunk while telling the story, but Socrates justified fear of him and his jealousy in the beginning seems a sufficient justification to take it as true

I now remember why I left all discussion on the internet behind, its the literal Void here. I'm retiring from all discussion or interaction on the internet, I'm focusing my time on writing my book. Divergent opinions always existed, but there was a difference in their schizophrenia, how widepsread they were and the cultural zeitgeist at the time. All personifications of beauty were female. Goodbye niggers

This, too, shall pass.

>>15747196
Socrates is immune to drinking because he's drunk while sober

>>15747169
This sounds like a giant cope. There are hundreds of books on the subjects, and I don't see why christian authors would take the time to try and censor homosexual references if they were not prominent.

>>15747198
>my book
What's it about?
>All personifications of beauty were female.
Because only men have those dumb 2d waifu personifications and men think women are hot.

>>15747204
It's just not exclusive homosexuality like it is today. It's objectively different.
still gay though kek

>>15747198
>all personifications of beauty were female
And this is an argument from authority that proves fucking nothing.
Go do some more philosophical work, because to prove this you need to prove:
1. That all cultural manifestations actually have female personifications of beauty
2. That this happens because of a common shared natural or metaphysical mental ground
3. From which follows that these are not just manifestation of whatever was conventionally most functional at the time for social/evoutionrary reasons.
You clearly have more than one book to write on this, so get to work. You won't be missed. And don't forget to properly read your sources.

>>15747218
Yeah but it's because not having children was seen as a disgrace, so everyone was strongly reccomended to impregnate a woman at a certain point. This didn't mean they enjoyed it, and there is extensive evidence that people just enjoyed the gayness, liked male lovers more than female ones, and that this was accepted as long as you kept having children

>>15747241
>there is extensive evidence that people just enjoyed the gayness, liked male lovers more than female ones
Ehhhh I don't buy this part. Feels more like agenda pushing to assume that the majority of people liked it more. How can I be sure either way?

>>15747134

Personally, I don't think there exists such objective definitions of Good and Bad. There will always be disparities between the understanding of these concepts.

Anyway, even if we assume that there is an objective Good and Bad standard, it doesn't mean that in the face of easy hedonistic acces and individual wouldn't succumb to these pleasures regardless of his knowledge of the inevitable drawbacks.

Why does NoFap exist? Because there is a myriad of youngsters that know the negative effects of porn but still succumb to its hedonistic claws. Thus, even with moral knowledge it is extremely difficult to put a blind eye to easy hedonistic pleasures that modernity makes available.

Oh and a bonus from Assyrian law from 1500 BC

>"If a man has secretly started a rumor about his neighbor saying, “He has allowed men to have sex with him,” or in a quarrel has told him in the presence of others, “Men have sex with you,” and then, “I will bring charges against you myself,” but is then unable to substantiate the charge, and cannot prove it, that man is to be caned, be sentenced to a month’s hard labor for the king, be cut off, and pay one talent of lead."

>"If a man has had sex with his neighbor he has been charged and convicted, he is to be considered defiled and made into a eunuch."

>>15746200
What does it matter what degenerate cultures like the Greeks did? Let me enjoy the good things left behind by my ancestors, not the degeneracy. And I know there are parts of modern culture that are not degenerate and actually fight against the degeneracy. Greeks were also pre-Christian, so another big reason they sucked so bad.

I think that in general the fight is against the postmodern degeneracy using the non-degeneracy of the past. Call it pseudo-reactionary ism but I think it works.

Just in case someone brainless reading this thread actually believes that the ancient greeks weren't on some pizzagate tier shit, there are several scholarly works and other books dedicated to the study of pederasty in greek vase art. Example: "Images of Ancient Greek Pederasty: Boys Were Their Gods"

>>15747248
I don't believe the majority of people liked it more. The percentage of homosexual however could have been superior to today, because they didn't come from centuries of demonizing and criminalizing homosexuality. There were no centuries of stratified cultural practices peer pressuring into being heterosexual at all costs. There was no need to come out as gay, for instance, and loving boys was not a big deal, so it's normal that more people engaged in homosexual behaviours than they do today, because it was more accepted.
That said, this doesn't mean everyone was gay, or that the majority of people were. I think it's possible that it was still a minority, but far better integrated in the society of the time than they are today. I believe that society was open about it, and that it was mostly not a problem to prefer men to women

>>15747266
I don't agree with you, but this is still a more reasonable position than people wanting to LARP as ancient romans

>>15747056
Read Lysis. It literally has an example of both philia and eros - both socially acceptable ways of men interacting with one another.

>>15747198
>All personifications of beauty were female.
Erm, Ganymede? Endymion? Narcissus? Adonis? Hyacinth? Eros?

>>15746577
I can neither confirm, nor deny that.