Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3832. page

>a struggle for the throne of a kingdom, with the perfect mix of court intrigue, political maneuvering and warfare

Yeah, no

File: Henry_Arthur_Payne_-_Plucking_the_Red_and_White_Roses_in_the_Old_Temple_Gardens_(adjusted).jpg (551KB, 674x662px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 674x662px

>>911146
No

>>911153
England vs England = Dull asf
Unless you'd care to red pill me maybe it'd change my opinion

>>910950
Pagan, goes back to Babylon, as does everytghing else in Romanism, use at peril of your soul.

>>910970
anyone have ideas of how to get fundamentalist anon to take his meds?

>>910970
How is the rosary even remotely pagan?

>>910920
Here are the attempts I've made to argue with my point:

1) Moral duty could have existed in nature as an integral part of humans.

-but that violates point B: if fulfilling moral duty is human nature, then fulfilling it would be inevitable; that suggests all decisions by an individual fulfill their moral duty, which contradicts B given that B claims only certain decisions with proper motives do.

2) The assignment of that value reaches backwards in time, much in the way the assignment of the word "square" can be applied to items fitting the current definition of "square" even if they existed before the word was assigned definition. Ergo, by assigning moral value to assigning moral value, you are justifying the assignment itself and all future ones.

-but that's killing your own grandfather. If we decide moral value exists eternally, then there never was a reason to instantiate it in the first place. That means it wasn't anyone's moral duty to instantiate moral duty, so no moral person could have done so, which in turn means it can't exist eternally as there needs to have been an assignment at some point in order for it to exist in such a fashion, even if that assignment causes it to have existed prior.

Am I misrepresenting Kant or is he just full of it when it comes to ethics?

(2/2)

Kant is full of it when it comes to ethics for two reasons.

1. Like all moral philosophers, his 'objective system' is really nothing more than axiomatically asserting his favorite values as the Good-In-Itself, then creating the most efficient means to achieving those values. All moral philosophies start by asserting, by axiom "This is Good, this is the most important thing" and everything past that is just creating an elaborate system around that. Whether that "Good" by eudaimonia, or pleasure, or power, or 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number', or 'duty', its all the same.

2. His system is literally the inversion of why human beings created values. Human beings created values as abstractions of their own desires. To pursue these values, they instinctively formed into reciprocal groups. To keep order in these reciprocal groups and aid in their shared goals, they created laws to add a negative incentive to those who harmed the group.

Kant literally is the inversion of morality. He takes the laws, which are twice removed from Value, as the important thing, and everything beyond that is irrelevant. Men invented honesty because lies hurt them, then invented laws against deceit to make lying unattractive, and now a man comes along saying its more important to tell the truth, even if the world should end around you.

What a ridiculous notion.

>>910920
>prior to the assignment of moral value to the concept of duty
>...they were immoral to do so, as stated by point B in Kant's own words.

You can't do that. You are denying the antecedent of B (why?), but you accept the consequent. Of course you must arrive at a contradiction (see contrapositive).

A states: You must choose a motive.
B states: The only motive you may choose is duty therefore choosing any other motive is wrong.

That is, unless you get stuck up in the semantics of "duty", in which case you end up in a loop where in A you require "duty for motives", and in B "motives for duty". I have never read Kant, but I assume he didn't intend to troll his readers such. This is exactly the problem you have in >>910922 and there is no resolution for it.

If you want to resolve your problem with the word "duty", then view the duty in A as a higher level duty from the one in B. It is also questionable whether is was properly translated (originally in German I believe).

Also, you can't bootstrap any system of values, like this guy >>911001 said:

>1. Like all moral philosophers, his 'objective system' is really nothing more than axiomatically asserting his favorite values

But I disagree with:

>its more important to tell the truth, even if the world should end around you.
>What a ridiculous notion.

If you agree that your world will end anyway, and the proportion of your existence is infinitely small compared to the Universe, then you arrive at Stoicism, and the notion of "Always tell the truth." makes very much sense.

>I haven't read any religious literature: the thread

Most post-Nietzsche philosophy operates perfectly fine without absolute morals

>>910639
Petty reasons for not looking into those religions.

>not posting the Kirsten Dunst interpretation of Marie

rectify this mistake immediately

>>910552
France was the first country and culture destroyed by militant leftism. Look at modern ejucashen to see why leftists shouldn't be allowed to write history.

>>910571
>ayo teach when we finna learn about when we was kings an shit?

>>910191
Probably as strong as Spain or Portugal. Tuscany would produce some of the best explorers, cartographers, sailors etc in Europe. My LARPey fantasy is to have Italy unite in like 900 AD and have an established Kingdom until the modern day.

>>910191
Italians are lazy so it's unlikely it would've done much

File: Vespucci.jpg (17KB, 336x280px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 336x280px

>>911300
Come again son?

>>910120
maya

Daily religious devotion to a special diety. Different from other religions because there were a shit ton of god's on earth at one point in history.

>>910120
There is only one Reality and we are it

I'd fold it into a bird.

Sell it to the Indians.

i choose not to tell you what i do with it

Can you rewrite that in a way that doesn't make you sound like a bellend, and why you believe these things?

>>909955
>big words must mean woo woo

B-b-back to plebbit

I don't get why A and B are mutually exclusive.

Even if A is objectively true, very few people are going to live their life as if it is true.

>implying
West African trading empires, East African kingdoms, and the Swahili city states were pretty cool

>>909834
Because it was colonized by semites, greeks and romans and not sub-saharans

They are close to Europe, so trade. And they were part of the Roman Empire, so they experienced hundreds of years of relative peace. I don't know about the complexity of African governmental systems, but thanks to Rome they had a history of relatively good government.

>>909707
Nobody's perfect.

TJ was a coward who couldn't fathom responsibility or destiny as a nation; he was a smallminded politician in ways that Hamilton, Washington, and Madison clearly were not. Easily in the lowest quartile of founding fathers.

>wanted to keep the country small
>proceeds with the Louisiana Purchase

If we're talking about presidents who said one thing and did the other, for the good or not, TJ has to be one of the worst

no
yes, inasmuch most things contribute to most other things
loads of factors

loads of factors

>implying massive events like the falling of an entire empire have singular, simplistic causes
>implying these causes aren't far too complex for anyone to ever understand

>>909295
but muh immigration

>>909134
he played with the tactics that others created.

He was never a bad general, but he was never a good one either. He was just known for trying to kill Hitler and beating the shit out of a horribly led army in North Africa. His escapades in Normandy weren't out of this world and probably sum up his skills best.

>>909142
The replies for these threads are so typical, always basically the same.

>no he was overrated shit and complicit in Nazi crimes

>yes he was best general of the war and supreme gentleman

Was Africa a mistake ?

File: tumblr_m4x2jv6fRw1rwnv4ho1_1280.jpg (106KB, 800x673px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 800x673px

>>908886
Sure, I guess, it's anthropology right?
>mfw paranthrapoids

I would consider it biology and/or archeology, since early human evolution predates recorded history, therefore making it difficult to study history beyond theorizing when and how evolutionary advancements occurred.

>>908886
me bottom right

>>908692
That really doesn't have anything to do with the North Sea Empire, the Vikings of Dublin/Isles weren't really related to Cnut.

Anyway, Cnut was the sole reason the NSE survived at all, the rights of succession doomed any long term success. By the time Harald Hardradda tried to reform it, the Kingdoms where too independent.

File: 5a01f1e7bd56ffd21a9bc79799d1798d.jpg (118KB, 690x1000px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 690x1000px

>>908688
>Was there any chance of the North Sea Empire surviving?

Nope. It was kept together by Cnut, his underlings were incompetent and unpopular. Cnut kept the whole thing stable but even he wasn't well liked. If he had more time to stabilize his empire it might have survived, but very few states survived due to one mans will alone.