I'm interested in the following books. In what order should I read them? (I'll list them in the order I think I should read them). My interests are basically applying philosophy to daily life, being quite "zen" or content, relaxed, appreciation of art, and some existential woes such as acceptance of nothingness/death/possibility of no afterlife. I'd like to go heavy on the Greeks for a good foundation, Zen/Taosim, Nietzsche, Stoicism. Aquinas through Schopenhauer are sort of extras just to further appreciate philosophy overall and Nietzsche.
Letters From a Stoic by Seneca (currently reading)
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
Tao Te Ching by Lao Tsu
The Way of Zen by Alan Watts (I LOVED Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse)
(Looking for something about Socrates or Pre-Socratic here, recs welcome)
Plato Complete Works (can you recommend which specific works based on my interests?)
Nicomachean Ethics - Aristotle (more Aristotle suggestions welcome)
Thomas Aquinas - Selected Writings (the Penguin classics one)
Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy
Hume - Treatise on Human Nature
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason
Schopenhauer - The World as Will and Representation
Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov (I love philosophical fiction)
Nietzsche - BGE, TSZ
>>1611715
Chronological order
Critique of Pure Reason is 900 pages and very difficult (at least for many).
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
I'd reference this. You might want to read Hume's Enquiry instead. Maybe you should consult /lit/ too.
book of mormon
>>1611733
>Critique of Pure Reason is 900 pages
wtf I hate the pursuit of knowledge now
Any philosophy or ideology that is materialistic in nature is automatically going to fail because it discounts:
1) Importance and respect of natural material (Capitalism does this)
or
2) Human need for spirituality and naturally developed culture
(Communism does this)
>>1611692
Environmentalism can only be a material philosophy. Spiritually caring for nature doesn't do jack if you make no effort to understand how it works.
>>1611692
>Capitalism
>ideology
>>1611712
But would you dare mess that much with nature if it was sacred?
>Churchill was a weak and ineffective leader
Is there some truth to this or is this just a Wehraboo meme?
>>1611585
First you'll have to define your terms:
Define: Weak and Ineffective
>>1611638
Kill yourself, retard.
>>1611815
i agree, he should kill self
What happened to the empire of Khazaria? Tell me about this forgotten and not talk about history of a Kingdom called Khazaria.
>>1611465
Kazars are not jews.
Kazars are basically mongol-ish people who adopted Judaism
>>1611465
It was your typical run of the mill steppre empire
The nobility adopted Judaism
They got rekt by the Rus' and disappeared from history
>>1611480
>They got rekt by the Rus
You mean the Crusaders when they wen't across Europe to fight the Muslims?
I'm an "amateur" historian that recently got this replica great helm at a flea market. Is this a historically accurate recreation of what a crusader would wear? What other pieces would be worn with it by real crusaders? I appologize for bad lighting and will follow up with side/back pics.
Side view
A real crusader would have a simple helmet unlike the noble minority which could afford fancy armor
>>1611208
Do you have a source for what a crusader would wear?
He would have conquered the Multiverse.
>>1611185
Well since we are now living in a universe where magic exists pretty much anything might happen
>>1611185
It would make a great follow up to Man in the High Castle
Why do some people deny that Germany caused WW1?
Because it makes it easier for them to treat Hitler as an anomaly rather than a logical extension of Germany national desires.
Germany is the original dindu
BF1 was right to depict them as black after all
Oh wow, another german hate thread
Honestly, I do not think Jesus had a historical existence. Please watch this before responding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
After studying Richard Carrier, I think people are dumb to ever have believed in a historical Jesus in the first place. It's so obvious. There is just a lack of evidence.
The early epistles and Paul treat him as a celestial being that people know through divine revelation, and the Gospels were altered a lot in the beginning by early Christian rival sects to give the impression of Jesus being a historical figure (ie "Euhemerism").
Tacitus, Jospehus, and Tallus are not reliable evidence too for obvious reasons.
Also, there are way too many parallels to the death and resurrection savior gods to take the Jesus myth seriously.
>>1611043
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm
I've found Doherty also has good articles on the subject. He knows greek but be warned that he only has a bachelor's
I'm an atheist but some of these conjectures are a little flimsy. I'm not suggesting Jesus was real but you got to think about it and study it and not just throw out random assertions without arguing the points
>The early epistles and Paul treat him as a celestial being that people know through divine revelation
Of course, because Paul never met him. How else would he receive his gospel unless through divine revelation.
But Paul knew and met with people like James the Just and several other followers of Jesus.
His point of having his own revaluation was to distance himself from the Jerusalem church and assert his own independence and authority over his own churches.
He is quite vocal in announcing how his own authority is just as strong as any of the 12 Apostles given that his gospel came straight from Jesus and not second hand account thus his work is purely worded as Jesus talking to him.
>the Gospels were altered a lot in the beginning by early Christian rival sects to give the impression of Jesus being a historical figure (ie "Euhemerism").
The Gospels have been altered sure but that's mostly through translation and changing some words to fit the doctrine of the Trinity better and they're really obvious. None of the earliest Greek codices have any evidence of "Euhemerism", the all posit Jesus as a historical figure
>Tacitus, Jospehus, and Tallus are not reliable evidence too for obvious reasons.
In as much as Plato and Xenophon are not reliable evidence for Socrates. He left no writings. Plato and Xenophon don't give the same picture of Socrates, so we would have to conclude he isn't a real person either on that unreliable evidence
>Also, there are way too many parallels to the death and resurrection savior gods to take the Jesus myth seriously.
This doesn't suggest that he wasn't a real person, only that his cult was influenced by local cults just like any of the cults of Roman emperors who became gods upon death. They were real people
>>1611043
*tips fedora*
>every abstraction I don't like is a spook
>every abstraction I do like isn't a spook
>live your life for yourself, unless that means devoting your life to a spook
>it's ok to devote yourself to abstractions I like
>if you want to devote yourself to a spook, it's because you've been tricked, you can't actually want anything I don't like
Is there anyone dumber than Stirnerfags?
>>1610979
Give me ten examples of good abstractions.
>>1610979
>Is there anyone dumber than Stirnerfags?
They're annoying, yes.
>>1610987
The axioms that allow for us to navigate the world. The axioms that allow for math.
That's already a lot there.
If you fill uncomfortable with the question (like political compass one, just do not answer it), I will only delete completely empty responses.
Results will be published on 1st of September.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf7IN0tF9EqOEDXvfNrgCnyfLi_n4mY_iw-pLpfz_vQbwY8qg/viewform
>>1610946
bumping, answered
done
Is feminism a bad fan fiction of Marxism where women are proletariat and men are bourgeoisie?
Don't Feminism predate marxism?
>>1610879
Yup.
>>1610879
Only if you can tell me what the capital, labor, surplus value and means of production are.
How would shit have played out if he wasn't extremely racist?
Say, he was moderately xenophobic instead and restores the Prussian policy of Germanising the slavs and jews instead of killing them.
>>1610862
People generally didn't care about racism back then. The racial ideas that the Nazis put forward were actually very popular and they have many supporters throughout the world and especially the USA. Everything changed after Pearl Harbor happened and Germany declared war on the US.
Then he wouldn't have been Adolf Hitler.
>>1610873
His racist views led to the ideals of Lebensraum
How do you guys think the world we have today would've shaped itself if the whites won?
Would communism still be a threat like it was in the last fourty years?
How would this have shaped world war 2?
Fascism may still have been a real thing.
Poland and Baltics not hoplessly behind due to comunism
Russia collapses and is partitioned between western powers.
Why did he have to chimp out on Poland like that? Why not simply ask for the Danzig corridor and write off Alsace-Lorraine?
Because he needed to appear to his adoring public as the strong man, the saviour of a victimized Germany standing up to bullying foreign powers
>>1610749
You mean the Corridor or Danzig? Those were two different things.
Poland wanted to negotiate the status of Danzig already in 1920s. The Corridor was majority Polish, so it was.out of question.
Nobody wanted to talk with Hitler over Danzig because Hitler showed himself untrustworthy when he broke the Munich agreement. And to Hitler Danzig was just a convenient pretext.
Because he wanted to crush Britain and France, kill all of the Jews, and colonize Eastern Europe for liebensraum
Source: Everything Hitler wrote or said.
>Muhammad considered Ali his right-hand man
>Ali wasn't even invited to the meeting that decided Muhammad's successor
How can the Sunnis defend this?
>>1610695
So denominational shitposting: muslim edition?
>>1610695
>It's a butthurt Zoroastrian episode
>>1610705
I'm ready for a change of pace, I am sick to death of this prot/cath/ortho horseshit, give me some Ali.