What are some mistakes you did or see others do as newcomers to history?
Where I lacked knowledge I used to make too many assumptions about how people would have acted or how things must have been based on an assumption logic/reason and inadvertently often from a modern, localised perspective. Which of course lead me to the wrong conclusions and I see people doing similar things on /his/ today.
I also had an overblown view of my own knowledge and ability to explain things that I wasn't actually that knowledgeable about.
Luther was too autistic to have said something as funny as that.
>>1447017
Martin Luther was a riot
http://ergofabulous.org/luther/
>>1447011
Nothing wrong with any of that imo, you live and learn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319
well, /his/?
>>1447005
'well' what?
>>1447005
Oh, wikipedia.org. I know of that website too, it has good references. Do you want to discuss it?
post fallen legends
>>1446934
Nah, he was right but the jews got him
>harambe.jpg
What are the most (((mercantile))) passages in the Talmud, /his/?
There's too much to sift through on my own.
>>1446682
all of it is Gold if you translate it to your interest.
>the nail of a jew is worth more than the life of a non jew
what about misanthropes?
>>1446707
To beat the Talmudist, you must use Talmudism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtdkhNqC4Ug
This is /his/ not /pol/ senpai
There exists an infinite set of possibilities before, between, and after, our existence and nonexistence.
Within the entirety of our existence the possibility of the before and after exist, however, the before and after cannot contain our existence.
Therefor Solipsism is real.
>>1445300
This isn't an argument against solipsism, it's an argument against your argument in particular.
>>1445300
Derrida is better than this shit.
does Boltzmann's Brains support Solipsism or does Solipsism also applies to it?
Picked this up the other day. What does /his/ think? Did I get memed?
>>1445283
Have not read it but I usually stay away from such broad bookspectrum because they need to simplify and cut things out of necessity
>>1445308
This.
I mean a complete history of one country would be too broad already, but a history of a continent is silly.
>>1446058
I dunno, I could see it working. If what you're going for is sort of a zoomed-out panorama identifying longues-durees type trends, then I don't see why you couldn't write a ~1000 page book on an entire continent. So long as you don't presume to be writing something definitive or particularly granular.
I've just finished reading the Lucifer Effect and came to a conclusion that Stanford prison experiment would have turned out very differently if it hadn't been for the circumstances of that time and the issue is more sociological than socially psychological.
And also, I honestly believe that the experiment wouldn't have to be ended prematurely if the participants weren't American.
Any thoughts? Prove me wrong pls. I don't wanna oppose Zimbardo.
>pic unrelated.
>>1445215
>I don't wanna oppose Zimbardo.
>meme degree undergrads will do this
I feel bad for you. Zimbardo is worthless.
>>1445247
>sociology
>meme degree
Wew
>white devils are literally trying to claim dr. king as one of their own
s.m.h. when will it stop?
BLEACHED
>>1444798
>handsome devils
Fixed for accuracy.
>>1444798
Leftards and poltards making b8 threads and derailing discussion is why we shouldn't have humanities on /his/
What did pre-1900 pussy and ass smell like?
Nothing more that I like after giving my girl a bath than 69ing and eating some ass while I'm at it.
> lying on the internet
>What did pre-1900 pussy and ass smell like?
Like ur mum
Salty milk and coins
How can anyone look at the Munchhausen trilemma (or think independently) and think that any aspect of philosophy is non trivial? You literally can't. Everything Marx said was unfalsifiable garbage. The same with Nietzsche and so on.
When you see philosophers actually talk about real world topics it's clear that philosophy has given them literally zero additional tools for reasoning compared to a regular person. It's laughable.
It may sound like I'm being dismissive and elitist, and I am, but modern philosophical institutions such as universities and publishers are also elitist. They claim that their own areas of philosophy are worth debating but others aren't. According to them, Ethics is worthwhile (even after Hume, and every person of average or above intelligence knows about the is-ought problem) while "Philosophy of Doughnuts" isn't. There's plenty of unfalsifiable stuff you can say about doughnuts but there is a tonne of dogma surrounding institutions and they refuse to talk about what's worth talking about (not that there would be an answer, but no surprises that they don't risk the loss of importance / funding). Philosophy has become a very rigid circlejerk.
Treat my rants about philosophy and institutions separately.
I want to emphasise the Munchhausen trilemma but I may be accused of being a logical positivist. I know what's wrong with that, but then Godel has shown that a logical system has to be either incomplete or inconsistent, so every other system must be "flawed", but funny how this only gets used to dismiss systems that lower the potential for unfalsifiable circle jerking. If you bring up the Hegelian-Zizekian-Platonian Dialectical Jam Biscuit Capitalist Reasoning System then the academics will be in raptures.
So where does that leave us? Philosophy as a tool for pseudo intellectual posturing ("Oh look, I read about Aristotle's Physics in the original Greek!" and innumerable other examples). Can anyone convince me to think otherwise?
I know people will say that science and mathematics are part of philosophy and I agree that they are but I am clearly talking about all of philosophy apart from those two areas. Although the purview of philosophy is deemed to be so large that when I decide to go and have a shit then people will claim that that was an incredible example of philosophy (whether due to the resulting increase in world happiness or the aesthetics of my shit or infinite other reasons.)
Philosophy ended with Descartes. Everything since then has been nothing but useless pretentious circlejerking.
>>1444144
>Munchhausen trilemma
One appeals to Blaise Pascals argument from the heart.
Some things are just innate within us, to challenge them is a legitimate irrational.
For instance, people cant logically justify logic, they are left with a tautology.
They just take it on faith.
Same for truth and non-contradiction.
It's just in us.
Is getting uppity about religious/cultural references in media justified?
Nigga, they're Japanese.
It's just another weird folklore symbol to them.
it is sort of required out of self-preservation, even fedoras clutch pearls when their bug bears are invoked
>>1444080
Getting uppity about free speech is never justified. Plus I think this is Off-topic, take it to /pol/, they seem to have a 50/50 split of Christians and atheists so you might attract quite a few posters
Would it be cool if a website/app existed that listed every notable country in the world, along with a way where you can learn about the history of each country's history?
Imagine clicking on a country, then selecting your era, then selecting your topic of interest. This would be followed up with a video and a narrator ala Crash Course series
When you select a country, the eras/topics to choose from will be on the right side or whatever, and it'll show you a map view of where all the topics are geographically located
I was inspired by this idea when I stumbled over how Brazil had a civil war. I was like waaaaaaaaaaaaat
>>1443910
Kill yourself, you posted this multiple times and it's already been called out as shit
Doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. Sure. I'll see over the tasks required to actualize such a concept.
What is wikipedia?
So, got a visit from a Jehovah's Witness today. After trying to get rid of them I got in a brief discussion with them at my door. It seems they don't believe that Jehovah is Omnipresent but they do believe he is Omnipotent. This feels like a fallacy to me, as if one is not Omnipresent they cannot be Omnipotent as they are limited in space and time. Anyone have any arguments or counter-arguments to this?
>>1443701
JWs need to believe god isn't omnipresent so he doesn't see when they're murdering their children and stealing their grandchildren for abandoning the cult.
>>1443701
>as if one is not Omnipresent they cannot be Omnipotent as they are limited in space and time
I guess that an omnipotent being would be able to choose whether to be present or not. Omnipotence would imply that, right?
>>1443784
But if one is not always present then one does not have power over all things. One can choose to be present but if you chose to be omnipresent that would make the argument over Jehovah not being omnipresent a fallacy. I'd say that Omnipresence isn't conditional.
hero or traitor?
He changed his opinion when new information was present to him.
>>1443504
Neither, really. I hardly think it's an act of treachery to surrender when your position is absolutely hopeless, but I can't think of anything he did that was particularly heroic.
He was a general in a nasty war, that's all.
>>1443504
The officers and "specialists" that got out on the last planes were the traitors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsg8Zak6W68&feature=youtu.be&t=900