Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3524. page

>>1204818
The Easton one. The others look ridiculous, especially the Guilford one.

>>1204818
Why the eight stars?

>>1204770
Western culture started with Athens

>>1204775
Yes. Meanwhile rest of Europe wasn't even referred as Europe as they were seen as vile barbarians. The Western Culture as can be understood as today started with Renaissance. Which had an influence on landmass from Iberia to Scandinavia and Russia.

>>1204770
>But at what point USA took the lead?
After ww2 with the mass propaganda effort against the soviets and the sheer gap in pop culture production caused by language and population advantages. Mass media + largest media market meant that the US could simply outproduce culturally Europe, and we all know that in the culture war quantity >>>>> quality.

It means if you had to live your life exactly the same way all over again (and again and against and again), would you be happy, or depressed? If you would be happy, then you are affirming your life. If you would be depressed, then you're a wienie.

>>1204729
So it's something like a thought experiment? If so, why bother with recurrence? Why not emphasize the singularity of life since it leads to the same moral result?

>>1204732
Because Nietzsche is concerned with those who would be terrified of living the same life over...forever...more than they are of oblivion.

File: ObamaGreetsJacket.jpg (232KB, 1200x784px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1200x784px

It's less about discarding axioms and more about social cohesion around those axioms.

An axiom won't work if only half of people agree to implement it while the other half resort to sabotage.

An ideology isn't justified purely by theory or practice alone, it needs the right environment to flourish before it can be adequately evaluated.

File: Thinker-Statute1.jpg (174KB, 2362x3039px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 2362x3039px

I vote to discard the axiom that the universe is deterministic.

So basically, any notion that we are the product of our inheritance or adopted values more than our own free will in the here and now.

This frees us from the subterfuge that our destiny is predetermined by an alignment out of our control (which is akin to astrology), and allows us free expression; fueling our desires to create and innovate, hindered only by the physical restrictions that outline our life; not any presupposition of belief, altheistic or religious (although this is predominantly the former).

"Is there not a certain satisfaction that there are set before us certain limitations in life, so that its conclusion it may appear as a work of art?" - Albert Einstein

>>1205844
*physical limitations
I meant. I misquoted.

File: image.jpg (63KB, 359x474px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 359x474px

>>1204408
Yes

File: mjlaugh.gif (930KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 320x240px

>>1204411

>>1204408
Nah

File: 8a0dc767e557ee0626e6569f737982a7955baa2adad438d9069cacb9a8c84799_1.jpg (36KB, 320x500px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 320x500px

>>1204384
Fucking hell Voltaire. Say about the Heretical Germanic Confederation what you will but don't touch the true Romans.

>>1204973
Justinian, for all the praise he gets for conquering shit, basically destroyed what made the Roman Empire great. The Roman Empire allowed the philosophies of the Greeks to spread across Europe and influence it. The Byzantines maintained the old Greek philosophy, until this guy decided to shut down the big revival movement for the philosophy by ending the Neoplatonic Academy. The philosophical ideas of the time period only returned to Europe when Islamic texts were translated, and a lot of those texts were made in Persia in the first place because of this movement.

Of that Byzantine empire, the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that civilization has yet assumed. There has been no other enduring civilization so absolutely destitute of all forms and elements of greatness, and none to which the epithet "mean" may be so emphatically applied...The history of the empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs, and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude.

Orthodox bless pretty much everything. If you're an astronaut, they bless your shuttle, if you're a doctor they bless your medical equipment, if you're a soldier they bless your weapons, etc.

Blessing something is marking it to receive God's benefit.

>>1204189
Isn't blessing an arm of the state a bit too close to caesaropapism for comfort?

>>1204200
>if you work for the state, we can't bless your equipment because it's not privately owned and Stephen Moneyloo would pitch a fit
>even though we've anointed kings into their ascension since the old testament

>>1204083
Your concept of masculinity is inherently modern, post-1950s, therefore your concept of masculinity has nothing to do with ancient warriors concepts of masculinity.

They were average humans like today, they were manly as fuck, and you are a little sissy wuss boy.

>>1204083
They probably weren't as ripped. Functional strength doesn't always lead to definition and mass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAmCxXDkcdI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLWBTAlxLGg

>>1204083
>>1204205

They were fucking massive, primary sources attest

File: Chart (10).png (777KB, 1223x1600px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1223x1600px

>>1203831
> God cannot be described by men
This is a logical conclusion. You can't really define something absolute. You can describe it, but all of such descriptions wouldn't be accurate. Words are pointing nature of God but doesn't reflect him at all.

File: image.jpg (50KB, 500x436px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x436px

>>1203831
Sounds post-quasi-neo-Spinozian.
What response are you looking for? This is standard /his/ bait. Don't you have some input, OR are you simply SHITPOSTING and waiting for the fireworks? Seriously OP. Are you even able to formulate an opinion on this?

>>1203831
Easy counter argument.

1: Posit there exists a "god" (we shall ignore how you derived this but we'll use it as an axiom)
2: Give this god the property "Perfect" to indicate by some metric the maximal state of all parameters

A) Any change in "god" would render said object less than perfect
B) All descriptions of "god" involve some spatio-temporal change in god

Ergo; either god does not have the property perfect, or the descriptions are wrong.

If we take this to assert that both (A) and (B) are true then we reject the notion of logic and the form of this argument takes no meaning. At which point "proving using logic" that something "cannot be decribed with logic" is a non-statement as demonstrated below.

Posit that A = B
Posit that B = C
Enforce that C does not equal A
This does not prove that C is somehow magical and defies mathematics, it just means that one of your definitions is wrong.

everyone who invaded russia except the mongols

>>1203756
Shitposting hour is over, John

File: Luigi_Cadorna.jpg (545KB, 817x1034px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 817x1034px

WW1 generals get a terrible reputation which is 99% of the time absolutely undeserved and only an indictment of the ignorance of the people shittalking them.

Except for this guy, he's not as bad as people make him out to be... he's worse.

>Leave the arabians to me

kek

>>1203652

He didn't win in 1967 alone, and he failed in 1973. So yeah, about a 50-50.

>>1203652
Punished Dayan is somewhere in the midsle, especially after the Yom Kippur War

>>1203663
Yeah we all know the theory, but if theory was always applied catholics wouldn't eat pigs or shave either so...

Yeah a they did and they certainly do now

>>1203663

>MOHAMMEDANISM BLAH BLAH BLAH

you're such a try hard rei

Proto-guts

What did this guy do?

Jan Ziszka

Are you fucking retarded?

>>1203542
Wait, Voltaire actually existed?

File: tmp_4891-52798435-374814323.jpg (108KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x400px

>>1203557

>retreat
>lose ground
>victory

What do you think?

>>1203325

To be fair, it was a nice propaganda victory for the Eternal Anglo, but over all it was only 300,000 men.

Soviets lost 500,000 at Smolensk pocket for example and they still won.

>>1203325
Dunkirk was a massive defeat and retreat. It was only glorified for propaganda as the British 'cut their losses'.