What explains Poland's historical relative irrelevance and dearth of non-Jewish contributions and pre-communist lower wealth compared to Germany, despite their being next door neighbors with similar cultures?
Did the different states have very different institutions that promoted growth in one but not the other?
How long till they'll be in full communion with each other again? My money is 200 years.
>Lutherans are in communion with Catholic Church
Francis heavily implied that Lutherans can take Communion with Catholics back in November of last year
More precisely, I want to know on what pretenses countries that became independent of Spanish rule were formed. Was it cultural differences? Economic differences? If it was the latter, what are some examples of it?
For instance, what determined that Ecuador and Peru did not become one country or that Ecuador left Gran Colombia.
Hey /his/, I was curious:
Are there any people/ethnic groups/tribes/etc. who do not use human language?
When did the Republican party--founded to end slavery, and the Democratic party--the party of the KKK, perceivably switch places as the racist and anti-racist parties and why?
They didn't. Some elements of the Democratic Party defected after the whole Civil Rights thing, but the Democrats are still the racist party, they just hide it better now. They've almost unilaterally destroyed black people in America. It's actually a feat, historians will write books about this in the future.
Explain to me why this man wasn't right, why shouldn't we give more votes to those who are better educated and more capable of making decisions? Try to avoid cliche arguments void of substance like it preludes civil rights - if the wiser are able to better rule than the less wise than the less wise can rule themselves, then the problem is the ego of the less wise and nothing else.
I think it was Rawls that argued that a democracy is necessary because it justifies the state. So it isn't the most efficient rule but it's a fair rule. If you have a say in it you're helping to shape it and thus becomes part of it. Something like that, haven't read political philosophy in years.
It isn't the most efficient system, it's the safest system.
If you put more political power in the hands of a certain group, that group will only seek to increase its powers and the majority is now at risk of being suppressed.
tfw you remember belgium exists
What's the best way of stopping something that predates the history of humanity /his/?
Hey, I have no idea if this is the right place for this, but I figure I'd ask since it has been on my mind lately.
How does Buddhism, Eastern Religion/Spirituality, or anything of the sort deal with the fact that all around the world, children are starving to death, women are being raped, warlords are destroying villages, factory farms killing animals by the millions, ect...
I know this sound silly, but really, where does Eastern Philosophy fit into how cruel our world really is? I have recently taken up meditation as a hobby and all the research I have been...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Yeah, I think this and the highest form of Buddhism is self annihilation of the spirit, so you are not reincarnated into this world, this ball of dirt and shit we call earth, this thing called life. The dead only know one thing, it is better than life is the final transcendence.
I tend towards eastern philosophy more than western Abrahamics even tho I was born and raised in the west, the east has some good points.
How can we finally achieve peace?
Is she right? Is the creation of a world state the only way? Or some form of worldwide shadow government?
How would you achieve peace, /his/?
If the problem is War, and Peace is the alternative, then a world state is the only way to achieve that. Otherwise, states will always have War in their back pockets as an option.
If the problem is violence, and peace is the alternative, then there is no reason to think a world state would do any better or worse than any other states.
Ask a a guy who just wrote a 20 page paper on Edmund Burke anything.
>What were his least favorite things about the French Revolution?
He hated the whole thing so much it's hard to narrow it down.
He hated abstract reasoning in the first place, and to him the idea that you would base a revolution on "rights of man" derived purely from abstractions was satanic.
He hated people who thought inequality was a problem because he saw inequality as God's Will and simply human nature. Meddling with inequality was meddling...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Out of Africa theory is the theory that all humans originated in Africa and spread out from there.
But there's very clear evidence that proto-humans existed all around the world. There are even Homo Erectus bones in England.
How can humans have all come from Africa and spread out if protohumans were already in Europe and Asia?
That doesn't make sense.
There's two OOA's.
pic related is simplified, IIRC the earliest know fossil found outside of Africa is Homo erectus georgicus.
No one is denying that the very first protohuman evolved in Africa, but out of Africa likes to state that anatomically modern humans evolved only in Africa and spread out from there.
If Protohumans existed over the world, doesn't it make more sense that they all evolved into the different races?
What were the most objectively superior cultures in history relative to other cultures, and how were they destroyed?
What superior cultures of today have been or are being going to the shit bin?
ITT post what you are currently reading and what you're planning on reading next
Euclid - Elements
Thorstein Veblen- Theory of the Leisure Class
The Works of Archimedes
Ludwig Von Mises - Theory of Money and Credit