Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 703. page

File: image.jpg (158KB, 466x500px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 466x500px

Are they analogous to black Americans.

File: dogfight contrails.jpg (79KB, 520x395px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 520x395px

Can we post some dogfight related stuff?
The tactics are really interesting to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvDz4MrYXNc

File: 800px-Encyclopaedia_Britannica_1911.svg.png (34KB, 800x507px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x507px

I've started to use the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a personal reference for all things pre-20th century. Have I gone too far?

File: IMG_0781.jpg (94KB, 590x1000px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 590x1000px

What are some historically proven methods of treating depression and motivating yourself? I'm not talking about the pop-psychology and self help crap that was memed from the late 20th century to present.

File: billboard.jpg (668KB, 1485x697px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 1485x697px

Is there anything comparable to atheism in terms of contribution to science, culture, prosperity and peace?

File: 1200px-John_Smibert_-_Bishop_George_Berkeley_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (289KB, 1200x1613px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1200x1613px

Can Berkeleyan idealism be reconciled with the theory of evolution?

I've been thinking about how idealism provides a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which asks how a collection of unthinking atoms when placed together in some arbitrary configuration - through the process of evolution by natural selection - can give rise to consciousness. An idealist is able to respond that, in fact, non-thinking atoms to not give rise to consciousness at all, because reality does not consist of atoms: all that exists are perceptions of atoms. Thus, idealism dissolves Chalmers’ hard problem of consciousness into a question of not why there are perceptions or states of experience, but what they are.

But a passage in Schopenhauer's World as Will and Idea has really been bothering me. He says, ‘on the one hand, the existence of the whole world is necessarily dependent on the first knowing [conscious] being, however imperfect it be; on the other hand, this first knowing animal is just as necessarily dependent on a long chain of causes and effects which has preceded it, and in which it itself appears a small link.’

Schopenhauer then seems to argue, that to speak of ‘time’ or ‘causation’ before the existence of consciousness is to use these concepts outside of the only realm in which they can be used – as time and causation can only exist if they are perceived in a mind. ‘Outside of knowledge [mind], there was also no before, no time.’

I am hoping someone can help me wrap my head around this. We have mountains of evidence for Darwinian evolution. Does the idealist argue that with the birth of consciousness, evolutionary history is created in the mind of the conscious being? In that case where do minds come from? Is that akin to asking where does the universe come from?

Would a Berkeleyan idealist argue that God creates in us our perception of evidence for the past, but prior to consciousness, it didn't actually happen?

File: Berezina.jpg (336KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1600x1066px

>Guys, I have a great idea. Let's leave Moscow in the middle of winter with no food, no winter uniforms, and no cavalry.

>Let's do this while our soldiers are weighed down by the things they looted. Let's not stop the looting, and let's not bother putting out the fire. Let it destroy our winder shelter, and let it stand as a symbol of French occupation to the Russians. Let us embrace the chaos because YOLO.

wow Napoleon really was a genius.

File: black helicopter.jpg (15KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 640x360px

What causes mass hysteria and paranoia? I used to think that things like witch hunting were a symptome of low education, but nowadays i see even highly educated people who believe in shit like black helicopters, world control conspiracies, etc so it can't be that. It seems that human behavior is just naturally prone to unjustified irrational fears.

Are there any good books that cover psychology of the masses?

File: Albanian.jpg (32KB, 948x669px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 948x669px

What did poor Albania do? Why are they bullied?

File: ea4024c3fefd7eedc028bbbedb78e2970021bdb6bef37d9461429b4c2b110136.jpg (144KB, 370x523px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 370x523px

How well does he tackle this subject?
https://youtu.be/XA6aIhHzXkw

File: 1830399_orig.jpg (46KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 615x409px

Tell me about Irish volunteers in Spanish civil war. As far as i know they fought on both sides, in International Brigades and for Francists.

I find this interesting since the Irish must've been conflicted, choosing between republican and catholic sentiment that both comprise the Irish national being.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQbXO828Vio

This song made me ponder about this since it mentions both sides, those who fought for republic and those who fought for Franco.

File: 1497022726112.jpg (217KB, 1024x631px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1024x631px

As a child I was absolutely floored when I found out that monarchies still exist and that there are still kings and princes in the world. But monarchies were still extremely common right up to the early 1900s, people fought against oppressive, hereditary regimes to install democracy and republicanism in their countries, veterans of these conflicts, and the nobles and royals they fought against, might have still been alive in the 1970s and 80s, only ten years before I was born. Yet by this time the world had seemingly already forgotten about monarchy, it was already seen as some ancient form of government and not something that had only been (mostly) extinguished following first World War, still less than a hundred years prior.

Why do you guys think it took so little time for humanity to not only get over monarchy, but to romanticize it to the point we do today? I'm only coming up with Disney influence, which I'm pretty sure was important, but could not have acted alone to bring forth such a massive change in the way of thought, so what did it act in concert with?

File: 506219243_d692ef60af.jpg (133KB, 455x500px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 455x500px

When did humans start keeping hamsters as pets?

Where the fuck do hamsters even come from, I've never seen a wild hamster. Do they have tusks or something

File: 200_s.gif (12KB, 322x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 322x200px

You could probably argue that the true end of Antiquity was during the Bronze age collapse.

Rather that the rise of western civilizations, and expansion of Mediterranean civilization up to the fall of the WRE be catigorized into something else.

Medieval time will still have the same name, but to categorized the whole lump of the bronze age, iron age, and rise and fall of Rome as one time period defined as ancient times is just completely porpostrious

File: lelouchvibritannia2.jpg (92KB, 800x716px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x716px

What are some historical incidents of revolutionaries becoming reactionaries?