Would you be willing to agree with me that Socrates is wrong in Crito? He is delusional to think of the laws as one entity that never changes. The laws change over time. If a woman were to marry a man and fall in love with him, should the woman stay when she suddenly starts hitting him?
man hitting her I meant of course. I can see the very funny jokes already coming
>>2401381
He also killed himself because it was the majority opinion.
>>2401386
Yeah that one is also quite contradicting, I think he said in the same dialogue that one trainer beats the many in every case
A month or so ago I saw a post entitled "Library of Alexandria," which had a link to megaupload. I can't find it again for the life of me. Help. Thanks.
bumb
>>2401319
Actually I agree on this one. I have a few links I can dump:
https://mega.nz/#F!ZAoVjbQB!iGfDqfBDpgr0GC-NHg7KFQ!sdYGCTrR
https://mega.nz/#F!flYQGbzI!p1AFjtMuCLHQqocJqxV7rg!e14D1YzI
https://mega.nz/#F!hQVFBDbT!f3gOa3LUAHJXJJbFZfDytg!VYFhjJga
>>2402198
just gonna bump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzBDTPGML3I
>>2401253
me in the pic
Learn how to read faggot
What happened if you was British and called him "son of a bitch"
considering her mother was the daughter of queen Victoria
>>2401189
He'd go cry in his room like the pathetic little G*rm he was.
>>2401202
>germ
Please the royals of europe were so inbred that they represented a nation of their own.
>>2401189
the british queen was a bich
>what were the opium wars
>what were the boer wars
>Indeed, you might call me an existentialist. The truth is that, objectively, nothing matters.
>>2401101
I believe that in a sense, all religions are true
>>2401101
Nothing matters is such a funny statement.
>I'm a grown-ass man that starts troll threads.
Why were the byzantines so incredibly resilient ? What led to their ability to constantly bounce back even though there almost always on at least a two front war?
>>2400820
They were*
>>2400820
A strong bureaucracy, state and tax system.
Constantinople
If SJWs are post-structuralists, why do they act as if they have an imperative to deconstruct? Isnt that a meta-narrative?
>>2400374
& Humanities was a mistake
Why do you feel the need to in-group OP? What is a SJW?
>>2400532
Yep
>/his/
>/reg/
>/lng/
>/phi/
Get it done gookmoot
Do you think that Troy existed, and if it did how close was Homer's Iliad to the events that actually transpired?
>>2400363
We've literally dug Troy up in western Turkey. Iliad exaggerates and fantasises what was a real conflict and siege. Obviously.
>>2400363
>who is Heinrich Schliemann
They actually dug it up so yeah, I think it existed. I do think where was some kind of a pirate raid what became the basis for the story, but ofc it isn't literally true, especially since it was like 400 years between supposed date of the siege and supposed life time of Homer.
Let's say he loses at Poitres. What happens next? How far can the Muslim army go before someone can manage to stop them? What would a Muslim (Western) Europe look like?
>>2400215
>What would a Muslim (Western) Europe look like?
Al-Andalus
>>2400215
>What happens next?
The Muslims return home like they were already going with their plunder. The war in Aquataine continues on and off for the next 50 years. You probably don't get the Carolingians in power in northern France, which, depending on your views of Great Man history, either has a big effect or a small one.
>How far can the Muslim army go before someone can manage to stop them?
You do realize they were already turning back at Poiters, right? And that they made subsequent invasions of Aquataine, and never actually consolidated past it, just raided outside of it. They couldn't even hold on to all the stuff they already had. Tours was a meme tier battle, and Creasy is an idiot.
Wasn't it just a raiding party? I guess they would raid for some time and come back to Andalus with spoils.
>What would a Muslim (Western) Europe look like?
Same, maybe slightly better, since Arabs were more civilized peoples at the time, judging by Al-Andalus. In any case, reintegrating France into the wider Mediterranean trade would help to restore Roman-era prosperity to the region.
Running Tuesday afternoon to midnight, I will be hosting weekly dharma battles on this board.
Just to get things going this week, I'll post a koan. In the future, hit me (and each other) with your own questions and/or interpretations.
>A monk asked Tung Shan, "What is Buddha?"
>Tung Shan said, "Three pounds of hemp."
>>2400076
>koan
Zen fag pls go.
>>2400076
You need the context of this for the solution. Tung Shan was measuring the hemp at the time of the question, I believe, so naturally that is his response. The effect is two fold. First, the hemp itself has Buddha nature in that everything is Buddha nature. Second, he is measuring with disciplined focus, so to him at the present moment Buddha is three pounds of hemp, as the question was unable to direction his focus away from his present action.
I’ve been thinking about what the ultimate nature of truth actually is. Every person has a different sort of truth in their mind, which is subjective to their interpretation of the world through their senses. Yet we still seem to think that there’s truth, and that there’s a right and wrong answer to something. When you think about it, everyone’s interpretations of things are just a bunch of noises and sounds and sensations of things they’ve touched, etc. We add structure to these things ourselves and make patterns off of what we’ve absorbed through our senses. I think in order to establish what is truth, you’d have to establish what is thought, because thought inexplicably takes meaningless noises and stimuli and creates some sort of meaning out of it.
When you see that the stimuli that enter the brain are ultimately meaningless, you might even say that words are ultimately meaningless. Yet human beings minds, I believe seek patterns. Perhaps patterns are what distinguish a thought from a meaningless symbol. A pattern itself is something which is meaningless with meaning attached to it; it’s a string of same things which are next to each other; next is a concept which has meaning, and so on; it’s just a never ending hierarchy of contradictions, where something that shouldn’t have any meaning keeps trying to add meaning to the next thing, but ultimately it leads nowhere. Perhaps this ultimately paradoxical endless string of meaningless patterns is the ultimate nature of truth. Truth itself is a paradox.
1/2
Yet it would seem that there’s a problem with saying that a string of meaningless symbols, adding meaning in a hierarchy of contradictions, could be the only ultimate nature of truth, because obviously there is falsehood, untruth. Perhaps in the hierarchy, when one says something false, one would attach erroneous, meaningless non sequiturs to the hierarchy, which break the chain of contradictions leading to more contradictions; of meaningless symbols leading to contradictory self referential concepts of meaning, which are paradoxical because the ultimate nature of the stimuli is meaningless. In this way, I believe the nature of truth is paradoxical, the nature of the pattern seeking mind creates an illusion of truth.
2/2
>>2398815
>because obviously there is falsehood, untruth.
For each philosopher, through his mix of praxis and of discourses, we choose to follow the
deductions that he makes according to the logic that he chooses. Since philosophy is done in
natural language, there is more vagueness, emphasis, circularity than in mathematics, because the
words of the natural language has more ontology since it is the task of the philosophers to do this.
At some point in the deductions of the philosophers, we will be surprised, we will disagree, we will
not follow the deduction because, in a logic foreign to us, each logical elementary step is intuition
orimagination,intuitionorimaginationwhichdependsonouraffinitiesaswellasourcapabilities.
This is where we continue, stop to believe in his doctrine or learn another one, or explore our
own philosophy. In such a quest, the truth presents itself in degrees of appeasement : the higher
the truth, the less agitation, the more the appeasement up to an irremediable appeasement.
Could Caesar have conquered Parthia?
The problem never was to conquer it, but to keep it. Which with Roman technologies should be highly unlikely
If Trajan couldn't do it with the imperial armies of the empire's apex, then I doubt Caesar could do it at a time when Rome was a politically unstable republic on the verge of collapse.
Also bear in mind that Trajan invaded Parthia with much better intel and knowledge than the contemporaries of Antony and Caesar.
The fact that the Parthians had a sort of feudalistic, decentralized nature and traces of nomadic pragmatism was probably what saved them from being conquered by Rome.
Redpill me on the Ostrogoths
From the late iron age to the 3rd century the region stretching from Northern Germany across Denmark to Sweden saw a rise in population, tribes in these areas sought to expand trade and settle in new areas with the Goths moving down the Vistula river (Poland) then to the Dniester (Ukraine). Here they found Romanised tribes near the black sea and good land in the Danube basin which they subdued using their proto-migration era military tradition. They began a transformation into more organized polities, the more agrarian Visigoths in modern day Romania and the more steppe oriented Ostrogoths north of the Dniester, however in the 4th century they themselves were subdued by neighboring steppe peoples.
The Ostrogoths fell under the Huns while the Visigoths sought to migrate south of the Danube to escape and the rest is history.
Depite their subjugation they proved more resilient than their masters and after the Hunnic empire evaporated the Ostrogoths strewn across Europe regrouped and under Theoderic went on to take Italy, however they lived in a time of rapid change, Justinian's reconquest of Italy reduced them and they were absorbed by the Lombards during their conquest, arguably living on as part of the fabric of Italy and parts of the Balkans.
The Ostrogoths are still with us if not in name, they were definitely an example to other Germanic tribes and part of the blueprints for the future kingdoms of Europe, a system that would eventually put an end to the chaos. Their tale is one of the survival of a people during an apocalypse, though dispossessed of land and freedom at times they retained their ideals through thick and thin and made it through.
After the fall of Rome, ostrobros discovered that kite shields and mail armor are pretty badass.
What was the precise moment that the Greeks REALLY fucked up in their long history? How did they go from so wealthy, being the political class of every major city in the near east, to a literal colony of the northern tribes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
Battle of Manzikert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine–Venetian_Treaty_of_1082
Why do communist governments so often buy into really bad ideas like non-Mendelian genetics, wiping out sparrows to improve crop yields, or asking farmers to make steel?
I wonder if communism isn't inherently flawed and was just weighed down by series of bad decisions, UNLESS there's a particular aspect of communism that leads the government to making such bad decisions.
it's almost as if empowering chucklefuck peasants and wage earners to run society is an inherently flawed idea or something
>but muh educated vanguard
yes yes the dude that read Marx and engles who just five years ago spent the entirety of his life in the mountains shoveling shit is all of a sudden educated and should be the one making decisions at the local people's supreme Soviet yeah truly potentiates my peanuts
>>2398540
Okay, Cletus.
>>2398532
It isn't that they were more likely to buy into these ideas, it's just that the power structures of authoritarian states makes it easier to power such projects through any potential analyses or objections to their implementation.
This is true in right-wing authoritarian states as well as communist ones.
>>2398532
>abolish checks and balances on the power of the state
>have an identity often built on vengeance and perceived victimhood, particularly against those who previously led society
>control the media and academia, remove anyone from these positions who questions state decisions
>things often go to shit
I wonder how?