Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 336. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
>God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.
>“[This can be proved in the following manner]:
>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause. For example, if a triangle exists, there must be a reason or cause why it exists; and if it does not exist, there must be a reason or cause which hinders its existence or which negates it.
>...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>If therefore there be no reason nor cause which hinders God from existing, or which negates His existence, we must conclude absolutely that He necessarily exists. But if there be such a reason or cause, it must be either in the nature itself of God or must lie outside it, that is to say, In “another substance of another nature. For if the reason lay in a substance of the same nature, the existence of God would be by this very fact admitted. But substance possessing another nature could have nothing in common with God, and therefore could not give Him...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>One of the strongest and most commonly raised objections to pantheism is that it is simply inappropriate to call the universe ‘God’. Thus Schopenhauer complains that “Pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism,” for “to call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world” (Schopenhauer 1851, I:114, II:99). It has been described as nothing more than ‘materialism grown sentimental,’ (Illingworth 1898, 69) while more recently Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion complains...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>1185225
> For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause.
You can just ignore entire assumption. Things just exist or they don't exist. No cause. No reasons. It is like it was always be. Triangle exist because of axioms, but axioms just exist. No cause for them. No reason for them. Existence of certain things is starting point of the all out world. End of the story.
tell me 1 thing that is wrong about quran
pro tip:you'll never find it
>>1196038
Jesus died.
Jesus was crucified.
Jesus rose from the dead.
Jesus is God.
/thread
>>1196043
what is wrong with that
>>1196059
It's incorrect. It didn't happen. It's not true history.
Remember, this is history & humanities, not /pol/ theology.
is killing animals wrong?
Nah
RULES OF NATURE
It's unpleasant and we could be more humane about it.
Meat's fucking delicious, though, so whatever.
>>1183044
No
But people doing it for pleasure to certain animals of higher intellect shows a character flaw and lack of empathy in that person.
t. Kantian
Did the US really stand a chance of winning in Vietnam?
It was a war unlike any other they'd fought before and it seemed like even towards the end they had no idea how to fight a force as unpredictable and unconventional as the NVA and Vietcong was.
How could the American military have won the Vietnam war if not by fighting it by objective based campaigns?
We had plenty idea how to fight them. It's just like with Afghanistan, there's only so much progress you can make without being horrible invaders subjugating the populace. Trying to be the good guys while in a country you don't belong in is next to impossible.
If our country had far less of a conscience we could have easily gone even harder with the mines, bombing, and agent orange, but our own people wanted the troops home.
>>1187154
>It was a war unlike any other they'd fought before
Philippines. 1898-1900. With a Guerilla war that lasted up to 1916.
Lets even throw in The US-Philippine defeat of the communist insurgency there by the 60's.
>Unpredictable and unconventional
Comes with the territory since - I dunno if you know this- it's war.
Also look up Green Berets. They were trained to outguerilla the guerillas.
>How could the American military have won the Vietnam war if not by fighting it by objective based campaigns?
Attack NVA.
Problem however is escalation. But who knows how that will pan out. Probably a repeat of Korea and Vietnam divided into North and South.
The Vietcong got their shit kicked after the Tet offensive. Some believe that the NVA let it happen due to concerns that the VC might pose a threat post-war. I don't know if it would have been possible to really win the war. Both the Chinese and Russians were backing the NVA as much as they could. I think that the best case scenario would have been a Korea style split.
tell me about the -stan countries, /his/
Kazakhs = Mongols
Uzbeks = Mongols
Turkmens = Turks / Mongols
Kyrgyzes = Mongols
Tajiks = Gypsies
Afghans = Gypsies
What does the -stan fix mean?
>>1175935
'Land of the' I think so Kazhakstan= Land of the Kazhaks
Why, in 500 years of an Empire, did the Romans never figure out a clean peaceful method of succession?
I'd also like to remind you that the issue of succession is probably the leading cause of collapsing empires.
For example
- The Roman empire, succession not being the only reason but definitely major
- Alexanders Empire, no clear successor after his death led to several successor kingdoms in almost perpetual warfare
- The Sunni/Shia split in Islam, the argument over who should succeed Muhammad, still causing problems today
because rulers are generally sociopaths who don't care what happens after they die
>>1196503
Because whenever you lay out a method of succession you have people dissatisfied, who then propose other methods of succession, or resort to ridiculous things like killing the heir, or just disregard the succession laws altogether and attempt to install an illegitimate claimant because they don't like the current one.
How could you trust any authority or body to properly bestow the title? The general method was to promote your chosen heir and get them in enough of a position of power that they can grab the reins as soon as you (the emperor) die.
When and how did the title of "dictator" become associated with generic tyranny, and lost its specific political and constitutional connotation?
When America needed a way to convince its citizens that foreigners needed to be liberated.
>>1196131
But why use 'dictator'? What's wrong with tyrant/despot/autocrat/etc?
>>1196143
You have to understand the perverse purpose for the tergiversation of the word.
The words "tyrant", "despot", and to some extent "autocrat", already had "negative connotations" within popular consciousness, while "dictator", was a neutral word within popular consciousness, but if you know its actual etymological meaning, it has "positive connotations", so in order to vilify that which was good, they had to actually refer to it by its word, but perverting...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
We're we just lucky to have someone invent writing or were we destined to be monkeys with a short useless lifespan?
looking at that plate makes me sad, lemme cook you up something nice anon
>>1195803
Are you the same guy who posted the ketchup and bananas pic? Dude, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to start hiding your threads, it's so gross it makes me angry. Get off /ck/ and start eating like a big boy, please.
we have a pretty long life span for a monkey, mainly because we have useful brains that take a long time to develop
don't see the point you're trying to make with writing, though
Is Eastern philosophy superior?
>>1195697
This oversimplifies things to the point where it's meaningless.
Taoism is individual while Platoism is universal.
"Adapt to external changes" is basically Stoicism.
I could go on but the thread has already started with such a retarded premise.
>Eastern
>Philosophy
>>1195697
Hahaha, aren't you something! But in all seriousness, the Western-philosophy-is-superior-meme is also kind of lame.
Western philosophy does deal with some stuff that Eastern philosophy does not seem to handle, but I am a pleb so what do I know.
Is feudalism natural transition that ensues after societal collapse?
>>1195581
Feudal society is a society itself. So was the society that proceeded it.
In Europe feudalism was very much the result of traditional Germanic power structures and the absence of some sort of civil servant/lawyer group like say the Romans had.
If Rome was conquered by "Barbarians" with an army of bureaucrats we might not have had a society with feudalism following Rome.
>>1195581
Feudalism is the natural state of humanity. Feudalism existed long before the medieval period, and we still exist in a feudal state today.
>>1195581
No, it takes awhile to reach feudalism. First you need an an acquiescing network of strongmen, united under some common cause. In the case of feudal Europe, for example, it was the dogma of a shared religious concept.
Otherwise, you have despotic individual city states.graduating to some form of oligarchy or pseudo-democratic council.
Did The Islamic world peak in culture and advancement with the Abbasid caliphate? Was there a ever better time for Islam after or before?
>>1195534
Gunpowder Empires was Islam's last gleaming.
>>1195534
I thought it peaked until the Mongolians who destroyed the Bagdad library and sheet and after it Muslims went all into Wahabbi stuff
>>1195545
No, whilst the Mongols basically annihilated a lot of the progress the Muslim world had made after that they largely continued to be relatively normal people.
It wasn't until very recently when cold-war politics started to shut down any attempt at secular nationalism or left-wing movements before they could take root that they started turning to radical Islam as the most important thing.
>implying he did ANYTHING wrong
>>1195468
>implying he did anything
>>1195468
>implying he did
>>1195468
>implying he
Is James White the Richard Dawkins of Protestantism?
Calvinism, specifically, because he debates everything under the sun, not only Catholics and Muslims, but also other Protestants on topics like infant Baptism, free will and soteriology.
>>1195247
Find the most absurd Atheist out there and you got the best comparison
>>1195247
>Calvinism
How did Nazi Germany and other imperialistic European nations reconcile the idea that whites were the "master race" with the fact that for the majority of human history, Northern Europeans did not contribute anything of note to the world? Until after the Renaissance, most important works of science and culture were created by Africans, mediteranians, middle easterners and Asians.
Not trolling, but if history is looked at objectively it's clear that Northern Europe was a regional power at best until the industrial revolution and basically full ooga boogas...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>not trolling
I don't believe you
>>1194980
I guess the logic is that the Roman Empire was superior to everyone they conquered, and because the Germans were never conquered by the Roman Empire, and indeed ended up being declared the new Roman Empire in the Middle Ages, they must in turn be superior to the Romans, meaning, of course, that they were the biggest bestest race on the planet.
>>1194980
First of all that isnt true especially if you consider celts to be northern european. Secondly nazis didnt think whites were the master race and thirdly white doesnt mean northern european
Do you think the West is due for a "Renaissance of the Medieval"? That is, do you think we will eventually see a second flowering of Medieval thought and art, the way the first Renaissance saw a rebirth of Ancient thought and art?
>>1194841
No.
No, not in my opinion.
The Renaissance began to germinate and grow once old works of art and literature were discovered and Italian artists, scientists and thinkers tried to emulate them as they enjoyed them.
But in the modern day we have gone past this point. We have the internet and the ability to travel wherever we like, and we have almost the entirety of the medieval works ever created in various libraries or on the internet.
There is no reason why people who are interested in medieval art and thought can't study it, but the fact that we already have...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Wasn't Romanticism already that?
