Hey /his/, is there a difference between doing something and failing to prevent something?
>pic unrelated to philosophy or Nagel
Nagel says the difference is the aim. For instance, if you twist a child's arm, the aim is pain. Failing to prevent is "less evil". You don't seek the pain in twisting the child's arm.
>>378849
You arguably fail to prevent a lot more things than you do. I think the question should be wether or not you can be held responsible for an event, either by action or by inaction.
>>378879
If you intentionally allow something to happen, are you more responsible for its happening that if you failed to prevent it?
If there were not schism over the dual nature of Christ, and Islam never happened but rather Christianity maintained dominance in the Middle East, would Europe and the Middle East have wound up with a common identity? Perhaps even racially? I know it took a while for Catholics and Orthodox to be accepted as white by Protestants, but perhaps if they were, then the Middle East would have been too provided the conditions mentioned at the beginning of this post were in effect?
it looks like he's chowing down on her hair pie
i have nothing else to contribute.
Stop applying an American perspective on world history.
If Islam never happened some other cult with similar beliefs would have replaced it. Religions are a result of their environment.
The early Christians, Gnostics, and Mithrists all had similar ideas. If the Christian cult failed than the Mithra cult would have taken it's place or the Gnostic one. The same would be true in the middle east, Muhammad was the strongest warlord so his religion won, if he died the second strongest warlord would take over and have a similar religion.
Historical "what if's are kind of retarded anyway"
ITT:Epic Bible quotes
>From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
2 kings 23-24
God orders people to be stoned to death for picking up sticks on Saturday (Numbers 15:32-36), and commands that those who follow other religions be slaughtered (Deuteronomy 13:6-16). Indeed, genocide (Deuteronomy 2:31-34, 7:1-2, 20:10-15, and Joshua, e.g. 10:33) and fascism (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:13, 24:13-16, Numbers 15:32-6) were the very law and standard practice of God, right next to the Ten Commandments. Instead of condemning slavery, God condones it (Leviticus 25:44, cf. Deuteronomy 5:13-14, 21:10-13). And so on.
And the New Testament was only marginally better, though it too had its inexcusable features, from commands to hate (Luke 14:26) to arrogantly sexist teachings about women (1 Timothy 2:12), from Jesus saying he “came not to bring peace, but the sword,” setting even families against each other (Matthew 10:34-36) and approving the murder of disobedient children (Mark 7:6-13), to making blasphemy the worst possible crime (Matthew 12:31-32), even worse than murder or molesting a child. It, too, supported slavery rather than condemning it (Luke 12:47, 1 Timothy 6:1-2).
Worse, its entire message is not “be good and go to heaven,” itself a naive and childish concern (the good are good because they care, not because they want a reward), but “believe or be damned” (Mark 16:16, Matthew 10:33, Luke 12:9, John 3:18), a fundamentally wicked doctrine. The good judge others by their character, not their beliefs, and punish deeds, not thoughts, and punish only to teach, not to torture. But none of this moral truth was in the Bible, but instead drones on about subjection to kings and acceptance of slavery, while having no knowledge of the needs of a democratic society, the benefits of science, or the proper uses of technology. It even promotes superstition over science, with all its talk about demonic possession and faith healing and speaking in tongues, and assertions that believers will be immune to poison (Mark 16:17-18).
So I just read the first volume of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and what caught my attention was Trajans wanting to emulate Alexander the Great. Cool, but I know nothing about him and would like to dig around on him. Got any papers or books I could read on him?
>>378815
>Got any papers or books I could read on him?
He was an overrated military leader who did his friend up the butt so much that he barely bothered to sire an heir. This would cause the fall of his empire.
>>378824
>overrated
>>378815
a bibliographic article with tons of books and articles on him
http://pastebin.com/mQyZed6u
who is this man? What were his ideas? I have only heard about him because of /his/.
That's Maximilian Stern, the angriest man in the West
something something spooks
Mock Shturnuh
(Translators note: Shturnuh means spook)
what's the most amazing military maneuver in history?
the most impressive campaign?
>>378656
I'm still a sucker for the storm of steel
>Strategy?
>PFFFT
>FUCK THAT, BUM RUSH, GO
I also find it amazing that they kept doing that for years
Alexander in Mid East, Hannibal in Italy, Subotai in Europe, Lettow Vorbeck in Africa springs to mind.
Cannae
what went wrong
it existed
>>378507
why are 'strategy' maps like that so fucking annoying
I can't put a finger on it but something about them is just wrong
i heard somebody say "strategy maps" in this thread?
ITT: philosophers people blow off because their philosophy is uncomfortable
Muh black swan
In what sense do people blow off Hume? He's kind of a big deal.
>>378490
Hume is opposed by those who subscribe to moral objectivity and scientific positivism.
Of course, critical thinkers realize that a healthy measure of skepticism is a bonus to both philosophy and science.
Has there ever been a fuck up in history as bad as when the Japanese attacked pearl harbor?
When your dad said "don't worry if i pull out you won't get knocked up" and your mom believed him.
>>378429
Croesus's attack on Persia comes to mind.
>>378434
>If you attack Persia a great empire will fall
>Oracle's face when
Why are there so many goofy Christian denominations in America?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oqcG1Ws5FE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHb4gs1hwck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tp4ENcSvFc
>>378420
america has more freedoms (or less traditions because most are descended from uprooted potmelted immigrants)
Because we have crazy religious black people and white Protestants in the south are absolutely indistinguishable from the crazy blacks in every way
>tfw mother is a mathematician, sends me to a good Episcopal school, allows my sister and I to watch and read LotR and Harry Potter growing up and shit
>Fast forward 10 or so years and she's joined a megachurch
>tfw had to convince her just a few months ago that role playing games didn't involve actual magic
American Christianity not ever once
Protestants a shit tbqh
Who made it? Was it Arab slave traders who stopped in the area?
Arabs weren't active in that area at the time it was made. I think one theory was that it was actually Jews who migrated beyond Ethiopia and intermarried and blended into the native population.
>>378590
Meme
>>378590
racism > scholarship
welcome to /his/!
Which is better to live under? Vote and discuss.
http://www.poal.me/irqo1m
http://www.poal.me/irqo1m
http://www.poal.me/irqo1m
http://www.poal.me/irqo1m
>>378375
None of them.
Why is this a thread.
>>378384
Yeah but if you had to live under one what would it be?
>>378386
Depends.
Would I be living in my parents homeland or here in Canada?
A real man, real in all the ways we recognize as real, finds himself suddenly abstracted from the world and deposited in a physical situation which could not possibly exist: sounds have aroma, smells have color and depth, sights have texture, touches have pitch and timbre. There he is informed by a disembodied voice that he has been brought to that place as a champion for his world. He must fight to the death in single combat against a champion from another world. If he is defeated, he will die, and his world, the real world, will be destroyed because it lacks the inner strength to survive.
The man refuses to believe what he is told is true. He asserts that he is either dreaming or hallucinating, and declines to be put in the false position of fighting to the death where no "real" danger exists. He is implacable in his determination to disbelieve his apparent situation, and does not defend himself when he is attacked by the champion of the other world.
Is the man's behavior courageous or cowardly?
Feel free to ask your own questions if you so desire.
>>377855
>sounds have aroma, smells have color and depth, sights have texture, touches have pitch and timbre
So, synesthesia?
>>377883
Since the comprehension
of sweet sound is our most indefinite conception, music, when combined
with a pleasurable idea, is poetry. Music without the idea is simply music.
Without music or an intriguing idea, colour becomes pallor, man becomes
carcass, home becomes catacomb, and the dead are but for a moment
motionless.
>>377855
Considering the way the world works the vast majority of the time, he is justified in believing it's a hallucination. Although he could just play along to be safe, he's being a bit silly.
Post historic people who inspire you
>>377758
You inspire me, OP.
You are truly one who fight the system and the establishment, breaking the 4chan rules by being 5 years underaged to go on here.
>>377758
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC6oJURg6Pk
>>377758
Why don't you start?
This question comes after a discussion about censorship with a friend. If a certain person speaks out in favor of censorship towards someone or something without invoking any legal entity, is it hypocritical to condemn that person? Posted here because philosophy I guess
>>377754
I have no idea what you mean but I post because this dog is cute
>>377754
What do you mean "is it hypocritical?" You haven't talked about the person in question, only the one in favor of censorship.
>>377754
What would censorship without legal entities look like? And what's hypocritical about condemnation?