Ok this is gonna be a really weird request, but does anyone have a non terrifying picture of Alexander Hamilton? I'm always freaked out by the very famous painting done if him, so is there a version of him that doesn't look like an alien child dragged from the depths of hell?
Also early American art thred
>>1475839
Are you trying to fap to him
>>1475839
His picture on the $10 doesn't look weird.
>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
What did Paul mean by this?
>>1475809
Why do you post an image of a man who literally turned philosophy into a servant of theology?
>>1475809
Aquinas relied way too much on dialectic and pagan philosophy, but he was still a neat man.
The approach of Gregory Palamas will always be superior, but thomism has its place.
Don't let Satanic Neoplatonist kikes like Hypatia kike you
Can something/someone with no sense of agency/choice/introspection/understanding of their own actions be considered immoral?
>>1475722
Oedipus:
Bloodshed—incest—misery—all this thy lips have launched against me,—all this that I have borne, woe is me! by no choice of mine: for such was the pleasure of the gods, wroth, haply, with the race from of old. Take me alone, and thou couldst find no sin to upbraid me withal, in quittance whereof I was driven to sin thus against myself and against my kin. Tell me, now,—if, by voice of oracle, some divine doom was coming on my sire, that he should die by a son's hand, how couldst thou justly reproach me therewith, who was then unborn,—whom no sire had yet begotten, no mother's womb conceived? And if, when born to woe—as I was born—I met my sire in strife, and slew him, all ignorant what I was doing, and to whom,—how couldst thou justly blame the unknowing deed?
And my mother—wretch, hast thou no shame in forcing me to speak of her nuptials, when she was thy sister, and they such as I will now tell—for verily I will not be silent, when thou hast gone so far in impious speech. Yea, she was my mother,—oh, misery!—my mother,—I knew it not, nor she—and, for her shame, bare children to the son whom she had borne. But one thing, at least, I know,—that thy will consents thus to revile her and me; but not of my free will did I wed her, and not of free will do I speak now.
Nay, not in this marriage shall I be called guilty, nor in that slaying of my sire which thou ever urgest against me with bitter reviling. Answer me but one thing that I ask thee. If, here and now, one should come up and seek to slay thee—thee, the righteous—wouldst thou ask if the murderer was thy father, or wouldst thou reckon with him straightway? I think, as thou lovest thy life, thou wouldst requite the culprit, nor look around thee for thy warrant. But such the plight into which I came, led by gods; and in this, could my sire come back to life, methinks he would not gainsay me.
>>1475722
Morality only exists in the "fairness" of behaviors between one or more people or higher animals.
You can't have morality in a scenario with no people.
>be objectively the most powerful country in Europe
>keep losing wars and territory over and over again, becoming a shadow of its former self.
What went wrong?
Stupidity at the helm, as always with empires that go bust.
>>1475655
Germany made many great contributions to society, but all of them came before unification. Unified, Germany has brought us nothing but war and sorrow.
>>1475655
t. Lloyd (((George)))
t. Neville (((Chamberlain)))
t. Winston (((Churchill)))
We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
'Called it Macaroni
We will, we will rock you
It's a long way to Tipperary
Why would be anyone attack a castle? Why not just go around it, burning and pillaging the countryside as you go?
>>1475479
Castles are often place in strategic locations such as a mountain or river passing. Also enemy forces inside the castle can use it as a base of operations and harass the enemy army while fleeing back to the safety of the castle when needed.
Castles hold the ability to deploy, house and coordinate troops through some sort of leadership that would take up residence in the castle.
You can't just simply leave a body of hostile men in a place while you go past.
Was Pearl Harbor attack deliberately allowed, just to justify USA intervention in WW2?
Probably not.
The US knew something was coming, but "something" and "the entire peace negotiation was a ruse, and they're going to simultaneously attack every Western target in the Pacific" are two different things.
There were actually a couple days after Pearl Harbor where the entire Roosevelt White House was cursing their luck, because they knew that the Japanese would distract America from the war in Europe.
Then Hitler attacked, and they got the chance to leave Japan on the backburner and concentrate on Hitler.
>>1475391
You're thinking about it wrong. The US didn't need justification, it needed a way to get it's people into the idea of entering the war. The current president at that time got elected off of the slogan "He kept us out of the war". It's just that at the time the US was extremely unwilling (politics make that clear) and the US gov. needed to make people want to enter the war.
>>1475425
>The current president at that time got elected off of the slogan "He kept us out of the war"
I think you're thinking of Wilson.
Did the Jacobins realize they were actualizing the Sun King's goal?
>>1475176
No, because they were all stupid poor plebs lmao
1789-1799 was a pretty hectic time for everyone. It was hard to have a long-term perspective on things, whether looking forward or backwards. Everyone was caught up in the moment.
You really had to be there.
Was it really necessary for Mohammed to have thirteen wives if he was saying you can't have more than four? I know Muslims say prophets can break the law for practical reasons, and Mohammed broke it to gain followers by marrying into alliances, but Jesus didn't have to marry a bunch of women to get people to follow him.
Bin Laden's father had 23. Marry, impregnate a few times, divorce. Women are literally cattle in the middle East.
Jesus didn't get people to follow him. That was all done well after his time.
>>1475248
Jesus had a number of followers, over eighty in apostles alone.
Can the driving forces of history be reduced to a dialectic of genes and memes? Can this dialectic "end" in an omega-point where previous paradigms cannot apply, or even contemplate?
Or is Whig historiography more accurate, where nothing much will change beyond how efficiently people can cater to peoples standards of living and sensual needs - more sneakers, coca-cola, chips, cars, etc? How do you think history will "end"?
>>1475119
When the fucking human race is extinct....?
>>1475122
Obviously history as "the narrative of agents and events" will never "end" so long as there are agents and events to happen. However, isn't it entirely possible that the human race will pass a point where it is no longer recognizable as the "human race", and so "human history" will become something else altogether?
There are many flavors of this sort of idea!
>Marxist dialectic where material forces produce world-communism
>Jesuit notion of the "noosphere" evolving in the same way the geosphere and hydrosphere interacted to produce the currently extant biosphere
>scientism's notion of technology producing an AI that will fundamentally alter human existence
etc.
Do you think any of those close in on what might be reasonable?
>>1475150
History is not history unless someone remembers it.
Post historical boipucci
>>1475061
Beady God.
>>1475067
Dude looked like he was from Monty Python, I understand why Brits took the piss
Hey /his/.
Ever since I was a child, history had always been my thing, especially military history.
I'm dedicated to getting a job relating to the subject, I want to be a historian but I'm afraid I might not get the best grades.
Any secondary choices?
>>1475028
Join the Military.
Read books while in the Military (it's peacetime anyway).
GTFO of Military.
Offer job as Museum Guide.
>get 4.0 GPA
>get letter from Senator
>go to actual service academy to study this shit
>if you're really lucky, bomb some ragheads
>>1475045
I heard that in America, you need a Senator's letter to get to Westpoint.
How the fuck can you just walk up to one and ask for one? It's like Nepotism enabler.
What does it mean to be a medievalist?
Unrelated question : why did English nobles and rich merchants let these monasteries fall in ruin instead of reconverting into awesome palaces ?
Be a historian who specialises in the study of medieval history?
>>1475008
>Tfw Egyptologist
Best job imaginable.
Why are you, /his/ love war so much? I took a liberty to make some assumption.
Is it:
>"Wow look cool rifles tanks bright explosions so much fun m8" shit?;
>"War is a way to show one's agility, strength and bravory we must war simply because we are men. we were born to compete, and war is pure form of competition " shit?;
> "War is way to discriminate the strongest, the most survivable society", the natural selection shit?;
>"Good impacts of war, lets war to advance our technologies" shiet?;
>Those (blacks, whites, americans, jews, nazis, asians, masons, illuminatis, russians, arabs etc) inherently are bad people and we need to stop em', after that we will be able to establish a peace" shit?;
>[Your suggestions?..]shit?
>>1474941
I don't like war.
I just like instruments of war.
>>1474950
That's a big Mauser.
>>1474955
I'm not going to say it.
Help me evaluate Hegel's influence on modern society /his/.
>Progressism
I think, beginning with Augustine, history is no longer seen as collection of events, but as having a purpose. With Hegel, not only that but it is also understood as continually improving.
>the state as peacemaker
Of course with Rousseau we have the general will thing, but specially after Hegel the state is seen as this impersonal conciliator of different interests. Also if some good belongs to the state then it belongs to everyone. A grievous mistake (see "tragedy of the commons"). This allows, for example, Marxists and leftist in general to perpetuate the lie that taking stuff away from the citizens actually means giving it to them.
>the philosopher as court intellectual
So the "philosopher" or intellectual is reduced to a mouthpiece or apologist of the state, since the state is the end all and the means o realize every intellectual authoritarian revenge fantasy such as communism, etc.
What else is there?
Hegel was a never a big topic on /his/.