Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3529. page

>>1201010
Ireland would probably be in a civil war between the the U.K. backed Ulsters and Ireland.

>>1201560

That seems unlikely. Even if the fledgling Irish republic could hold Dublin, even if they could cause enough trouble in the countryside to draw off British forces, how long could they possibly endure? Once WWI was over they'd have the full force of the British army direct their way, not just mercenaries and token forces sent to quell a restless backwater.

Plus, the rising had almost no widespread public support in the beginning. That only came as the British started cracking down and executing the rising's leadership in a heavy-handed fashion, inflaming public sentiment. If Pearse and the rest were holding out in the Post Office, raising hell in the countryside, and brining the country to a halt, they'd receive widespread public scorn, and the blame for the unrest would fall on them in the public eye. Plus, eventually the British would just cut them off from the countryside, strangling their lines of communication and supply.

File: 1459931266213.png (1MB, 2426x1314px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2426x1314px

Easter?

Who? The Anabaptists?

File: hylian priests.jpg (90KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 480x640px

>>1200875
>>1200879

I just listened to Dan Carlin's four hour episode on that.

They took over a city implemented a primitive form of communism, used God as an excuse to bang everyone's wife, and then were horribly tortured and executed.

In terms of "might is right" looks like they were wrong.

In terms of philosophy, well I think they're wrong about that, too, but let's hear your case, OP.

>>1200875
They were literally Jim Jones tier shitheads

Implying they would be anything but niggers if the caste system was not in place. The caste system exists for a reason. In India, for example, the purpose was to separate the Aryan stock from the aboriginals. It must have worked, hundreds of years, but Inidia is very old...

>>1200816
Did mentioning Japans societal issues trigger the weeaboo?

>>1200736
Every society has an underclass. If it isn't defined by race, it will be defined by something else, it's inevitable.

Subject: Solipsism and conceptual schemes
Is the existence of anything outside your direct experience a semantic dispute? Is the existence of other minds a semantic dispute?

To be honest I don't know the answer. To say other minds don't exist, what am I actually referring to? Isn't it just this idea in my own mind I have of 'other minds' and so I'm denying the existence of something which doesn't even really exist in the way I think it does?

Can I even deny the existence of something transcendent from myself? How am I even talking about it?

Maybe it's not a semantic dispute but rather a dispute which comes down to the way in which I experience others. This philosophical 'problem' would never have even arose if I had never grew up with naive realism (wouldn't it?).

What the non-solipsist really wants to say here is not just some answer to the 'problem of other minds' but rather to say that the people he knows and interacts with, that it is them who are conscious, who feel things, who 'look back'. But that position requires one to accept that when one sees one is in direct contact with a world as it exists, independent of oneself, as if one’s eyes are windows onto an outside world.

>>1200627
And if they aren't then what of others? The people you know and interact with, known about through (or constituted by?) your sensory experience. If those people aren't external then they can't somehow 'posses' internal experience of their own - that's the crazy thing about the direct realists position, or really any non-solipsistic position; it's absurd. Perhaps more than absurd solipsism itself. As if the people you see walking around have this undetectable amorphous 'mind experience' that sort of hovers around (?), or within (?) their body. When others walk does their 'internal experience' get carried along for the ride? Where are other people's experiences located? If we say it's within the brain you're left in the absurd position of understanding your own experience of others is actually entirely located within a brain, you and the world around you and the others in it, is an experience and so must be already be located within a brain. Your experience of feeling a head and thinking there's a brain in it, must itself already be located within a (real?) brain.

If I scrap that and accept that the people I interact with are private to me, I could say yes but they indicate the existence of something which truly transcends my experience. That two transcendentally existing minds somehow communicate to each other because their experiences correlate (somehow). I wave my hand at a person over there, with that person being entirely made up of my visual experience, with this all in my mind, but then transcendent to my mind exists another mind which contains the visual experience of a person waving. And because the experiences the two transcendentally existing minds undergo correlate with each other in this way, one is not lost to solipsism entirely.

>>1200628
Or, I could simply accept that the consciousness of things in the world is nothing more than a quality of my own experience. And I understand that things being conscious or not always was nothing more than whether I experience the thing as being conscious. It's a qualitative difference between my experience of a brick wall, and of a human being. A difference in the quality of my experience. And this quality is not something which is part of my visual field or some sensory modality. It's a sort of pre-reflective understanding that one has a subject of consciousness and the other doesn't. When around humans I don't have to grapple with the 'problem of other minds' wrestling with whether to posit 'internal experience’ to them. Rather when around others it's as if my experience automatically (although not always) assumes this nature of being almost predicated on the existence of other people's 'looking back'. It really sort feels as if to doubt the existence of this is completely incoherent. That it's just a sort of absurd, strange thing to doubt. As if that's a misuse of doubt, doubt does not apply to things like that, if you try and do it you slip into incoherence. "If others don't exist, then why am I communicating with them, right now, with this post" sort of thing.

But then if it's not wrong but rather incoherent to doubt the existence of other minds, why is that? Why can't doubt coherently apply to the publicity of the world? If the world being public was a sort of true fact then surely it should be the exact sort of thing one could coherently doubt. But if one can't coherently doubt other people watching them, then their gaze mustn't be, a fact?

>>1200485
Neither. X conquered Y. Period.

They did a fuckton of damage to people they conquered. But in a longtime view they pretty much fixed and build things up.

Always the Romans. Pre-Constantine, I mean. After that they can get fucked.

Vlad Tepes

Arnold, ofc.

Or Alex the Great

Joan of arc

Too separate. Guatemala had all the power and shafted all the other countries.

>>1200490
We should bring it back.

Why is Mexico so big and then why are there so man small countries in Central America

We express our anger with mature phrases that signify to our surroundings just how angery we are

>>1200214
Both of those people are dead

Judging by the chart, Hicks is way too stupid to be an ENTP

No. They were expansive, but not colonial.

>>1199856
What land did the Ottomans annex outside of Anatolia?

>>1199856
Most of Siberia was quite literally empty. It was very similar to the colonization of north america. With cossacks being similar to cowboys.

Ottoman conquered land inhabited by arabs and various others, so it was different. Russia conquered lands like that too, but that was later, in the 18th-19th century, such as central asia.

>>1199480
This must be bait.

>>1199480
Why not Tzeentch?

>using mad arrows

File: 452390785.jpg (110KB, 500x412px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 500x412px

>>1199437
>What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

not strokes tho

>>1199437
What is the proper order to read Nietzsche's work?

>>1199503
Depends on what you already know. Familiar with Greeks, not modern philosophy? The Birth of Tragedy. Other way around? Beyond Good and Evil. Familiar with Neither? On the Genealogy of Morals.

Squad level

>dr mengele, i'm NSDAP

Piss bucket level

>>1199040
>King of Kings that high
>American Peril that low

File: 1400107181322.jpg (27KB, 300x192px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x192px

>>1199040
>>SHIT TIER
>
>Death Throes of the Republic

Here's your (You)

File: 1463741881272.jpg (33KB, 295x720px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 295x720px

>>1199051
American Peril was great, wtf u talkin' aboot.

>>1198840
> anti-roman
why would the church speak latin then?

DUDE CONSPIRACIES LMAO

>>1198857
The "Church" spoke Greek. Local churches spoke local languages.

Take a look at which language the bible, nicene creed etc are.

Anything can mean anything.

>>1198843
Certainly not

>>1198828
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/

That has a good survey of the existing mainstream views among philosophers of the field.