Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 744. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Why have patriarchal societies been almost universal throughout history?
They haven't, its just the ones that weren't were all shit.
see Germanic barbarians
>>766888
because scarcity > division of labor > male > female
Because prior to modern contraception and obstetrics women had very different lives.
What are your thoughts on Rome? Is it overrated as an empire? Personally I think the culture is really interesting, and the lasting impact it has had, but do people over romanticize it?
The very origin of the word empire.
>>766589
yeah, it occurred to me as I was writing the post that it was also the root of the word "romanticize"
>>766581
>could never conquer scandanavia
>shitbloods for life
What does /his/ think of John Green's Crash Course History series?
Is it just one guy making these threads or do people actually come here after watching his Youtubes or something?
he delivered an excellent and unbiased view of the soviet union and communism in general
jk hes a disgusting bouje liberal
He's liberal scum but generally gives a good overview of the topics he covers.
What is /his/ opinion on Advaita Vedanta?
>>766061
It's the final boss of religion, but it should not be preached and divulged to the masses, because it can (and does) give rise to many bizarre interpretations.
The Vendata was known as the teaching that "ended all sadness" (I'm paraphrasing here, I don't remember the right expression) and it was supposed to be taught only to high-level students who had mastered all the Vedas, the sacrifices, etc. But now stupid new agers, " scholars" (ex-hippies) and hindu gurus who want to fit...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>766135
>It's the final boss of religion
agreed. I am yet to find a more complete philosophical system.
>but it should not be preached and divulged to the masses
agreed again. This is one of those things that you have to be mentally and spiritually ready to understand, let alone to let it sink in. Explaining this doctrine to the unprepared mind can have no good ending, even if nothing more, because it puts out the flame before it has a chance to be...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Rip off of Nagarjuana's work kek
I just got into /his/ and am finishing guns germs and steel arm.
What are good follow ups that explain the current repartition of global power ?
I'm thinking leading objective works regarding colonization, mainly. As well as other key periods worth reading about. All suggestions welcome.
>>765406
Oh boy... prepare for a shitstorm of memeing, OP.
>>765406
>New Guineans were much smarter than whites who cheated to get everything.
>no evidence for Exodus
>no evidence for Purim
>no evidence for the Battle of Jericho
>no evidence for the cities mentioned in Joshua being inhabited at the time
What is this thing even
RICH, METAPHORICAL SYMBOLISM
>>764622
A compilation of a shitton of different accounts of varying validity and literary merit from across several centuries
An yes, the "Argument from ignorance".
But it goes both ways; it isn't rational to make a sure claim, positive or negative without evidence or counter evidence.
Empiricism includes such subcategories such as negativism, positivism, etc.
There are many things that have been reported to have been myths that had later turned out to be true; ie: Troy.
Is it rational the believe in the claims?
No.
Is it rational to claim everything is a lie?
No.
As to you questions as to what it is?
It's a collection of Bronze age recordings...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
How do materialists even define "truth" as a property? "That which is material"? I'm guess their conception of truth is not falsifiable?
>>764545
Truth probably precedes matter for most materialists. The reason they're materialists is that they think materialism is the most likely fit for truth, not because it's some axiom from which even truth is derived
>>764555
Then materialists see truth as a metaphysical property?
>>764545
materialism is not necessarily the rejection of idealism. It's the conjecture that the material reality has more weight.
Compare Kant's idealism in which the entire material world is reduced to an abstract thing-in-itself which can never be accessed or interacted with.
What do we think of the Beast of Gevaudan, /his/?
Hyena? Human serial killer? lion? trained dog? Just a big wolf?
some ugly ass dog
>>764151
Looks like a Amphicyonidae, a.k.a. bear dog.
Some documentary claimed it was an escaped hyena from a private zoo.
>God tells Abraham "Your descendants will number the stars"
>As of 2005, it was estimated that 54% (3.6 billion people) of the world's population considered themselves adherents of an Abrahamic religion
How can you explain this? This doesn't just happen.
Are they right? Are Jews/Muslims/Christians God's chosen people? Is there anyone who has ever had such an impact on the world? Jesus was supposed to be a descendant of him, so he is responsible for all 3 religions
>>763645
Rather than Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, or Muhammad being influential, it's more like a series of influential generations of religious thinkers retroactively credited their own influence over their religion to a legendary founder.
>>763645
Goddamned deluded christfag
Just killing everyone you disagree with and imposing and manipulating faiths because it ensures a certain emperors power through so called 'Divine destiny' isnt gods will it is the use of faith in statecraft to control the masses and engender reforms on the entropic and endemic systems within societies.
Its the same as calling communism as divine revelation, now get on your knees and start pleasing Jesus to feel his 'salvation' all over your face.
>>763645
Peace be on our father Abraham.
Was colonialism really that bad?
>>763600
>Belgian pile of hands
>>763600
>British pile of boer bodies
No, it was not bad at all. /thread
>“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
What did he mean by this?
He meant it is ok to eat bacon and wear mixed fabrics
>>763634
He literally says the opposite
>>763592
>fulfill them
Here's the key words that hang into balance.
One could argue that it means once Jesus dies on the cross as the lamb, the prophets and laws are fulfilled (at least some of them). Or argue He's not influencing scripture and restating the need of obedience towards the laws.
Either answer caused a divide between Christians.
Aside from the Germs they didn't know anything about, how many Indians did the European settlers really killed when they came over to America?
>implying the disease part was entirely on purpose
>>763562
Happy now?
>>763554
Wonder where they pulled that 100 million from?
How does "I think therefore I am." Work with the "This world is a computer simulation." Theory? Not the matrix idea where everything around you is fake, but that everything you know including you is not real. I guess you'd have to define "real", right?
>>763342
It doesn't, really. I feel like the flaw in "I think therefore I am" is the assumption that thoughts are necessarily not external. The mind could be an unthinking observer, which has thoughts paraded in front of it indistinct from any other sort of information. I think that the unthinking observer is as little as you can reduce being to, since otherwise you have nothing rather than something, which there obviously is (even if that something is illusory, or created by the observer itself)
Of course,...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>763391
>The mind could be an unthinking observer,
Sure, but it would still have to exist to even be an observer. Hence: I think, therefore I am.
>otherwise you have nothing rather than something, which there obviously is (even if that something is illusory, or created by the observer itself)
Congratulations, you've summed up pretty much exactly what Descartes meant.
It basically comes down to abandoning babys first solipsism.
>none of this could be real!
Fails to even define what "real" is or why being in a "computer simulation" would change anything.
I, as a former protestant and current nonbeliever, went to a Catholic Mass today for the first time.
I don't know what I expected, to be honest, but it's not what I got. The Roman Catholic way of worshiping is so much different than that of the Protestants' that I don't think you can really compare the two.
As far as doctrine goes, I can't say much because I don't know much about the Catholic doctrine and how it differs.
Anyway, fill me in on any major doctrine disputes and we'll have a civil discussion
>>762847
>civil discussion
Kek
That'll be the day
Haven't been to a Catholic Mass (I imagine it was more similar to Orthodox before Novus Ordo), but Protestant worship is very different from Orthodox Liturgy, so I do know what you're saying.
Catholics and Orthodox share a great deal of doctrine, but I can't really elaborate on how we're distinct from you unless you specify your sect of Protestantsim
>>762862
My father is Baptist and my mother Presbyterian l, so I've been to both
Why do all the accounts of the Resurrection in the Gospels contradict each other?
>>762721
How?
>>762725
What do you mean "how"?
Have you even read them?
Just a few examples.
a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
There were four women. Mark is just the most exhaustive about it, whereas John only names the principle woman.
I'm surprised you latched on to this, considering it's not really controversial.
