Who dressed better?
>In order to understand Ancient literature, you need to have a massive knowledge of ancient history and to be familiar with the context and circumstances surrounding the creation of that work
>In order to understand "modern" philosophers such as Derrida and such you first need to have a huge understanding of phenomenology, Heidegger, structuralism and post-structuralism and pretty much every single philosopher (and their ideas) that came before him, and it all boils down to "start with the Greeks"
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
the idea that you can fully graps something knowledge of hat produced that work, is bogus. You wouldn't have the need to read it then yu could make it up yourself if this sort of "transparent" understanding was possible.
In fact the value of a work resides exactly in what is stranger to you and the effect it produces by clashing with your cultural horizon, also not everyone needs to be a critic.
What was the point of Anglo and German anti-slavic sentiment?
Wasn't the whole Europe dominated by Indo-Europeans anyway?
Let's talk about Medjugorje.
Been there once on a pilgrimage some years ago. I had my doubts and I still do, but... ...I don't know. There is this rocky hillside where Mary supposedly appeared. The place had a certain... ...aura, if you will. Like if it was graced by the presence of something holy. Or maybe it was just my mind playing tricks with me. Who knows.
Hypothetically, if Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte and Hannibal Barca were each given 100,000 peasants and 3 years to train them for a 3 way showdown between the generals, using the peasants as their armies on a completely even level of tech, who would win?
Whats the tech level? Also remove Hannibal. He was the king of a form of war based on rational states. Thats why he lost. The idea a state would tolerate a fucking maundering army in its land was unheard of at that time, Hannibal did not know he was fucking with gangstas.
what does /his/ think about this youtuber?
in my opinion he makes quite entertaining videos.
Entertaining. A good way of getting basic information about a variety of topics. NEVER assume he's correct about ANYTHING.
So what's the deal with Holocaust denial?
I think it happened but the numbers were questionable, and even so it was still horrific.
I also dislike the emotional driven narrative that plagues the USA that puts Jews on a pedestal, but yeah, the Holocaust did happen.
Because people always feel the need to counter things they disagree with in equal extremity. So when, like you say, there's a constant emotionally driven narrative around the Holocaust, other just as delusional people who get tired of it are going to shout the total opposite of what you'd usually hear.
Because most of the arguing is over the amount of deaths, when it might have been inflated for propaganda or miscalculated, some people draw the conclusion that because of this it did not happen at all.
If the British Army landed in Europe, I'd get the Belgian police to arrest them.
Who was the historical figure with the most wit?
/his/ humour thread
So do all southern /his/torians shitpost confederate nostalgia and "muh war of northern aggression" or am I the only one who's massively embarrassed by the csa and it's aftereffects?
Was he objectively the most competent Emperor in Roman history?
For example, here's one I consider 'interesting': historians and researchers are certain that the original story concerning the Binding of Isaac in the Old Testament actually ended with Abraham killing Isaac as commanded.
According to one source (Terence E Fretheim in The Child in the Bible edited by Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, Beverly Roberts Gaventa, pg. 20), the entire story of the Binding of Isaac "bears no specific mark of being a polemic against child sacrifice"
Scholars point to verses 20-24 of Genesis (which come right...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I'm just curious, going along with this theory, where does the supposed nation of Israel come from. The formation "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is repeated throughout the pentateuch, and from what I understand, that formulation is pretty old.
>the entire story of the Binding of Isaac "bears no specific mark of being a polemic against child sacrifice"
This is true. However, there are plenty of mentions of child sacrifices to Molech being forbidden.
>Germany was so technologically advanced it took the entire world to beat them
Russia, Britain or the US alone could have beat them. each of them outpaced Germany's war economy often by several times. but the war would have lasted a long ass time without multiple fronts due to Hitler forcing the country to fight down to the last man and refusing to surrender
Was it a war crime? Was it justified?
You're of course right, but it's worth noting that Curtis Lemay himself once said that if the US lost the war he'd be tried as a war criminal.
OP, dropping the bomb saved lives, plain and simple. What about it seems controversial to you?
Let's say they true AI were developed one day.
Would that machine be eligible for the same rights you and I share?