Give it to me straight lads, give me 10 books that will most increase my cultural capital / patricianhood. I live in the UK btw.
That macro is strange. "Patrician" shouldn't be translated with "noble family" because there was the Nobilitas which was something else then patricians.
Also I say what I always say: Get Cambridge/Oxford companions/handbooks and take it up from there on the subjects you are most interested in.
The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius
The things to himself(also known as Meditations) by Marcus Aurelius
Aristotle's Politics and the Metaphysics(warning, tough reading)
Histories by Herodotus
The Aeneid by Vergil
The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
I could name a lot more, but it's a start.
Can you give me all the positive aspect of European colonialism? British and French particulary? I'm not trying to put up an argument, I really need them, it's for an essay.
Why do all the relief portraits and drawings or Akhenaten and his family look so weird?
It's almost like they don't look human, but some bizarre, alien like creatures?
Did everyone hate Akhenaten so much so it was their way to get back at him by portraying him as some fucked up Cthulhu creature or what?
look at those big ass hips
Why did Allies dissolve Austro-Hungarian empire after WW I while the big-bad-guy Germany only got a slight spanked ?
Was the eastern part of the former German Empire always poor, or are they only poor today because of communism?
Reminder that Versailles treaty was to lenient for Germany
Is lorica segmentata a meme armor? Hamata was always more popular and if it was considered armor for more "elite" troops, why do we rarely (if ever) see centurions wearing it?
I see arguments dismissed as it, but when someone 15 years ago could argue against normalizing homosexuality by saying it will lead to shit like normalizing pedophilia and bestiality and you see things like this article from Salon:
It makes me question if people are using assertions of that fallacy wrong. Hell, pic related is the first in a series of children's books about the concept of a slippery slope.
Yeah see, I'm asking here because...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
it's not always a fallacy, sometimes a genuine concern about an issue must be met by the innovator. But it isnt an argument either.
However, most people often strawman reductio ad absurdum argument as slippery slope fallacies
Note: Just because something is fallacious, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.
I'm not a philosophy buff, but I think your example is pretty good. For it to be a reasonable slippery slope, it should be reasonable. Legalizing gay marriage is a major "accomplishment", and given that it's LGBT, not just LGB, it's clear that there's more coming.
But if someone tried to argue that banning grenades would lead to taking away guns, they'd be dumb.
To someone who'd argue it, it would be reasonable, but could be refuted that a grenade is a seperate class of weapon and is about as similar to a gun as it is similar to a morning star or tessen. Outlawing a particular kind of gun however is a better argument as you are still discussing the same class of weapon and banning shotguns could viably lead to banning other guns like pistols and rifles.
Do you believe there is a supreme, powerful being out there, not necessarily The God in Abrahamic religions ?
What does /his/ think of Peter Hitchens body of work?
Is /his/ Moral?
Is it true that it's al-Ghazali who damaged Islam beyond repair?
From what I understand, he certainly had a hand with the turn toward mysticism. However, it's a trend for any intellectual movements in decay, so even if he didn't exist, someone else would probably occupy similar role as a critic of Islamic 'rationalist' philosophy.
He was notorious for accusing philosophers as heretic/atheists. That kind of legacy, of being suspicious toward philosophy schools, still exists even now in the form of baseless prejudices.
Hero or terrorist? Why?
What if the East had been the one to collapse in 476 and the West remained intact? How do you guys think they would deal with the challenges that had plagued the East after the West fell? The Islamic caliphates, the Slavic and Turkish migrations, the Crusades, a Western emperor trying to retake the lost provinces à la Justinian, etc.?
There were many instances of enemy armies brushing aside Roman armies and getting right up to Constantinople and turning back upon seeing the walls, then the imperial forces would, usually, get their land back after the enemy retreated....
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
So the western half had more development to make it more profitable
The Germanic peoples who migrated were either repelled or successfully assimilated into the western half also leading to the commanders starting less conflicts that drain the empires resources.
Is this what happens because these are a few of the ways I can think that the western half had to have happen in order for them to survive
It depends on how the west stayed intact, did they repulse the Germans and push them back out of their borders or did they properly incorporate them into the Empire? If the former, I think that the Roman Empire falls to the Arabs, like you said one of the main reasons the ERE survived as long as it did was because of Constantinople, since no equivalent exists in the West, with out a really military, it's entirely likely that the Arabs or some other migrant group like the Avars or Bulgars would have just run over the West. However in the case of the latter, where Rome better intergrates migrating Germans and German kingdoms into the Empire they might have a chance, since the Germanic militaries would give them the strength to resist against foreign invaders, though how long such a situation would last is debatable.
like I said in the post above maybe the romans did more to improve Gaul and Iberia so they yielded more benefit to the empire allowing them to better repulse invasion
maybe they increase the defenses in Africa did more to improve the navy in the Mediterranean to better control trade and fight back against the Saracens
Why didn't the Americans incorporate native Americans into the revolutionary war as much as the British did?
Because one of the things the colonists were mad about was that the British didn't allow them to spread further into the frontier aka native territory.
Why the fuck would the natives fight for people actively trying to take their land? This is like asking why Hezbollah doesn't fight for Israel. The British promised the injuns if they won, they would keep the colonists from spreading west.
Tell me /his/, how do the allies win the war earlier ?
Well this is a funny thread. All the time it is hurr durr how does Germany win. And every time the answers are the same, that it would require huge, fundamental changes in history/German politics/industry/strategy/and the like. And rightly so, seeing as they were outmatched and picked a fight against three superpowers etc.
Also threads like those are pure cancer.
But with the allies it's a cancer less malignant... if only for the novelty value.
Why was the Japanese population so fucking huge during the Edo period, even though Japan isn't very fertile or has any abundance of farming space, much less pasture land?
Japan grew white a bit of rice. In addition to that, everyone basically lives near the coasts, which is teeming with seafood of course. Furthermore, they probably were able to import a lot of food because, again, very little far inland areas to worry about shipping food to.