Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3602. page

Literally just downloaded that from the name alone

File: 684459310_preview_Screen Shot 2016-05-14 at 10.03.15 PM.png (662KB, 563x628px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 563x628px

And by the way, this isn't a joke mod. It is a faithful reconstruction of every independent polity of the Holy Roman Empire c. 1444

>>1141547
Holy shit... Fucking Germans I swear.

>>1141423
This doesn't answer your question at all but I would just like to say that an aristocracy isn't the opposite of a meritocracy.
Since intelligence is roughly 80% inherited the upper class aren't equal to plebs only in birth right. That's why those families got to the top.
That's why you can have people getting appointed to important positions by virtue of nothing but birth(eg military leader) and have it work out fine
also
see: Darwin-Wedgwood family

>>1141423
/his/ is filled with religious reactionaries

>>1141477
>that's why those families got to the top

Maybe originally, but fortunes last generations, and heirs and heiresses getting free money does shit to improve their work ethic.

>thinks Christian theology can reach an end

We're all sinners and nobody has found the perfect system.

We're talking about God here.

We can theorize and speculate, based on the information we have available (scripture), but nobody will 100% know until they're dead, or at the Second Coming of Christ.

Yeah but fedoraschirstcuckstipsfedorashorudofturincatholicchurchpedophilescandalmuslimsisismuhammedwasapedophilethejewsarebehindeverythingtheykilledjesusthegospelsareeyewitnessreportsconstantineisafilthytrannythatspanishfuckerisprobablyschizophrenicandsoisthatjapanesegirlwhokeepsinsistingthatjesuswastheantichristwiththatstupidimage

>>1141053
Said by someone who has no knowledge of theology. You know that theological thought has progressed since the middle ages. We have ideas generated by it that are new that didn't exist before.

No.

He's only relevant if you're an atheist.

>>1140812
no

>>1140836
also no


Is this really a serious question?

>>1140812
He ended all debates concerning "objective" morality.

Now the only ethical question is how useful an idea is a given society at this particular moment in time. For instance he said Stoics is the best ethics if your society is constantly changing in uncontrollable ways (hence why it thrived in a time when Rome was having a new Emperor every 5 years and there were daily civil wars).

There's this guy named Kant who is pretty important and wrote a bunch of shit about that

File: article-0-0A697ADB000005DC-177_306x423.jpg (23KB, 306x423px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 306x423px

>>1140860

Thanks for that.

>Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is the central figure in modern philosophy. He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

Because it implies naturalism/materialism.

aka what we sense with our 5 senses is all there is.

And since that narrow view of scientism has been destroyed by metaphysics and supernatural events, so is reason/empiricism a flawed concept.

Empiricism seeks to enslave you in bounds and chains. You can study and analyse the painting, but don't question who painted it!

India has a shitload of nomadic peoples.

Being nomads, they go everywhere.

Europe has a lot of shit for them to steal.

>>1140539
The same way Jews did.
They migrated thousands of miles after being expelled and kicked out of every city that harboured them. Except unlike Jews, they never progressed past the nomadic lifestyle.

Most likely refugees from some old war and moved from city to city.

Another view of Stalin

by Ludo Martens

Khrushchev Lied by grover furr

Stalin A Good Boy He Dindu Nuffin
by Comrade McTankie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIdUSqsz0Io

>>1140137
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG225dz89TY

>>1140143
Keep in mind that this guy is a huge Ruskiboo (someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I might be mixing him up with someone else).

>>1139967
Because they're far easier to write than historical novels, because you have to do research and shit

>>1139967
Please, let them remain popular.

Almost all historical fiction I've read is fuck awful and pushes an agenda.

File: 9780007230204.jpg (37KB, 372x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 372x400px

Are they really though?

>>1139721

You don't understand utilitarianism.

In utilitarianism the moral thing is the alternative, out of ALL alternatives, that has the highest total utility.

Killing 49% of the population clearly is NOT the alternative with the highest total utility.

Retard.

Utilitarians don't generally believe in tyranny of 50%+1 majority. Hardly anybody does.

>>1139727
How is it not?

>>1139572
Gilgamesh and Enkidu is the greatest friendship in history.

Nothing beats the one between Brutus and Caesar.

Gaius and Aulus have no equal.

Huns probably. They had good pr

>>1139468
Scare as in "holy fuck these people are pure savages"? Probably the Caledonians, that far north was foreign land even to the other Celtic Britons.

File: 0[1].jpg (141KB, 472x654px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 472x654px

WE WUZU PIRATESU DESU!

>>1139396
>Muh considering only one variable in a very dimensional and loaded multifarious question

Why not suicide? After all u r gonna die anyway xd

>>1139396
>i'm so fucking dumb: the paragraph

>non-existent police force
china is a country that sells the organs of political dissidents it has killed

I'd say he's wrong. Look at the growing alt-right movement for example. Or the how popular Trump has generally been in the US elections.

Also,
>“And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.”
Yeah, it made Germany into a baby back bitch. Japan is arguable, but all of Germany's problem stem from the aftermath of WWII.

I'd say so. It is the hugely dominant ideology of the ruling classes of the western world. People who quibble with that are only really making a semantic point about what this broad established consensus should be called.

I mean, it's not completely won, but it's in a position many times stronger than the next best thing.

How about you stop misusing the term liberal or thinking 'leftism' is some kind of single ideology.
Start with that then we can start talking. (Not directed at you OP, but in general)