A /his/torical leader you hold dear is a woman in an alternative timeline. What happens? How does she fare?
Fairly sure that due to gender roles women simply couldn't do what men could do like I thought of Niccolo Machiavelli and ive got nothing. I guess if a woman achieved a diplomatic/military role in Medici Florence she must be doing something right, so maybe she'd be more successful than the real Niccolo?
It'd probably be unlikely, but I wanna see a cute girl conquer a shit ton of land
Communist fans go from 15 year old high schoolers to 25 year old waifufags.
Infinite Rape. More rape than has ever, and can ever be conceived.
I haven't read much about him, but I like what I have. Why doesn't he get more exposure? I'm a philosophy undergrad and I've only heard him mentioned in passing when discussing Nietzsche
Only fragments left of him, but they were enough to make him the greatest influence by far on both Hegel and Nietzsche.
Here is what's left
>We should let ourselves be guided by what is common to all. Yet, although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of his own.
Logos of course was the basis of Hegel's conception of Geist.
>Maybe of only the Greeks.
No, I'd say of everyone. Neither Schelling nor Fichte made dialectic synonymous with flow like Hegel did, and there can be no doubt that Nietzsche got his "child" stage of spiritual transformation from Heraclitus, as well the eternal return, his attitude toward war, the spiritual desert, his views on free will, even his critique of metaphysics draws heavily from Heraclitus.
Hegel once wrote that the history of philosophy should start with Heracltius. He was the first to see universal laws, or Logos, shaping every part of the world and to realize that all conclusions about how to live one's life or shape society are derivatives of them.
The quote that I associated with Heraclitus was
>“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”
How does his "life is in constant flux" perspective fit into his belief in universal laws? My (limited) impression of him was one of chaos, not order.
On a side, my professor mentioned that the pre-socratics were poets, and that their outlooks were metaphorical and shouldn't be taken at face value. Is that a valuable piece of information, or did they truly believe in elemental monism?
>On a side, my professor mentioned that the pre-socratics were poets, and that their outlooks were metaphorical
Poets in the sense that they spoke figurativily I suppose.l.
>My (limited) impression of him was one of chaos, not order.
Heraclitus would say that things are only chaotic when you are 'asleep' or not aware of the true nature of the world.
>or did they truly believe in elemental monism
This is again reductionism. Heraclitus did not literally beleive the universe was made of fire, that was a metaphor, fire is always changing shape.
I cannot speak for the other one's much. However not every pre-socratic focused on trying to define what the universe was made of.
A note on the pre-socratics. The standard view you will hear, that they were 'scientists' rather than philosophers and believed in literal elemental monoism is inherited from Aristotle, who's ideas as you should know were kind of never really questioned until the Enlightenment.
We moved past his metaphysics. In general metaphysics doesn't even have the same as it did in Aristotle. Aristotle could talk of an 'essence' of a thing being independent of it's existence. That would be considered abstract knowledge or a language game today. Nietzsche really had us settle in on metaphysics that only relate to the apparent world, he got this from Heraclitus who insisted the theory of flux is apparent from keen use of the 5 senses.
Spinoza also kind of did this. He got us thinking that everything is connected on some level so you can't really talk about a thing as being independent from it's parts or environment. Aristotle had us thinking about single concepts as existing in vaccuum.
anyone who marries that will have all my pity and envy
and will probably die in a duel
>Cyrus the Great
So an Aryan Girl is puts the Middle Eastern bullies in their place? Noice
women being hedonistic and men loving to satisfy women, women are too busy spreading their legs to be ''leader''
I don't know but I'd probably fight even harder for female Napoleon than for actual Napoleon. It would be like the second coming of Joan of Arc and the Virgin Mary.
>LBJ intimidating people with her huge bust
Manlet politicians across America live in terror but also erection of receiving the Johnson Treatment
Instead of going to India to conquer everything, she'd be sent to marry some merchant.
>What happens? How does she fare?
It doesn't matter which one it is, the answer will always be "never gets anywhere, world history has that leader subtracted from it". In a case like Newton or Luther that would just slow things down; in other cases it would have appalling consequences. But the woman would never actually achieve anything or become famous.
John of Arc, peasant boy with visions, would just go apeshit on the English, actually lead armies, and couldn't be executed as a witch.
If he lived, he'd probably end up scoring a duchy or something, and having to kill Gilles de Rais with his own hands.
Bring Romans to a whole new level,
female gladiators, tits and ass bouncing.
I will pay to watch.
>everything in Caesar's will goes to Marcus Antonius
>the imperium sine fine probably doesn't happen