What 3 books should someone new to history start with? I'm going to have about a month in the summer with nothing to do, so I'd like to read some history.
I'm not really fussed. If the 3 books had some continuity that would great, but is not necessary. It could be a book each to represent a different period (antiquity, medieval period, etc.)
Something related to empires, collapse of societies, war, revered historical figures, etc. would be interesting.
To get a general idea of the scale of human history, I would recommend these titles. The first two are not actually textbook history books, but have helped me comprehend my history textbooks, as they are easily readable and give insight into the facets of what human culture consists of. I'm bretty sure each and every virgin paraplegic autist on this site will tear their neckbeards in half and stomp on their byzaboo dioramas in a hysteric fit when they see my suggestions, but then again - this is just my opinion, and the books I've listed have helped me greatly.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Shitty ruler(s) thread.
What was the greatest empire ever?
Not just military power and pure size, but also influence and culture.
Rule: The Empire has to have had at least two rulers.
Ask and discuss.
Discussing Normand and Outremer history also welcome.
I'm still pissed about that.
Lavoisier's death lead to the stagnation of the field of Chemistry for roughly half a century, if not more.
Has /his/ discussed this yet?
As many as 4,000 people fought in a battle over a river crossing 3200 years ago in Pomerania of all places. Weapons were mostly bronze, cavalry were involved, and the warriors came from all over the place, many from Southern Europe. Maybe Northern Europe during the Bronze Age wasn't as big a backwater as we think
What is the theory called that says that free will can only exist if God exists?
Basically, the summary I heard was that if there is no divine being, and if we dont have souls, then we are moving forward from the natural prime movement. If that the case, then every atom is merely an object in motion staying in motion, and thus all of our actions and movements are predetermined. The only way we can have free will is if given free will by a divine being, with souls that are able to counter physics?
I dont know if thats completely it, but does anyone know what Im talking about?
Let's talk about the meaning of life on a societal level. Why should we as a society keep struggling, keep advancing?
I don't remember who but I think some Swedish philosopher said the meaning of it is that we can reach a society in which everyone has comfort and can reach self-fulfillment. Where people can spend their days reading books, painting, etc. That should be the greater point of technological advancing.
(Yet interestingly, our society shames people who spend their days going after pleasure and comfort.)
What do you think?
>Why should we as a society keep struggling
Struggle is only a matter of perception anon. While a life may seem like a struggle to one man, those same conditions would be a breeze for another.
Being self-satisfied and not getting frustrated by others having different beliefs/methods. Learning how to be democratic with the whole world.
I'm pretty sure that would sort out 90% of humanities issues.
Refute this claim /his/
Credit unions are the 2nd worst thing in history after Holocaust.
Pro tip - you can't.
How do we define this once and for all? Can we?
You are transported back in time and placed in the body of Alexander the Great on the day of his fathers death, you combine his knowledge with yours.
What do you do?
Which of the following civilizations is the biggest disappointed to its former glory?
Please explain your answer.
The Greeks of today are barely Plato's Greeks. Mesopotamians have a good excuse, being overrun by Mongols and then dominated by Turks. Koreans were never formerly glorious.
So it's clearly the Latins or Egyptians. Egypt has fallen lower on an absolute scale, but there is clearly a greater gap between the greatness of Rome and the greatness of Italy than there is of the greatness of Egypt now and 2000 years ago.
Why was Protestantism so enticing to Germanics and Nordics?
Because it was started by a German who liberated the North from its Latin yoke.
What can /his/ tell me about this man? Was it true that he was a Neocon? I never got the sense that he ever arrived at a solid political, or even philosophical position apart from "esotericism is pretty neat niggas"
Your instinct I agree with, having read most of Strauss's published writings, but also the transcripts of his lectures. My suspicion is that he's a Platonic skeptic, i.e., he thinks knowledge of the whole is improbable if not impossible, and that the fundamental questions are more knowable than the solutions and answers. This also means that politics is a bracketed subject, with respect to the question "What should be done?", since all that's maybe evident are the worst abuses and dangers.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>fuck the average person
>if a Tyrant would make a better environment for a philosopher, then we need a Tyranny
Are Heidegger and Strauss the most beautiful (in a tragic, pitiful sense) instances of cognitive dissonance philosophy, in response to Nietzsche?
I have a few questions about Christianity. Who were the wives of Adam & Eve's sons, Cain, Abel and Seth? Were the sibling marriages allowed back then or I'm dumb?
Adam and Eve had about 50 children in the end, they were genetically perfect so the usual danger of inbreeding wasn't there. Sibling relations were allowed out of necessity
It doesn't really matter since Genesis isn't supposed to be a literal historical account
Did Nazis actually have soldiers from all races in their army or is an exagerated myth created by /pol/ to justify their ideology ?