idk why but I really love trade people and civilizations. Like anything from the Italians to the Somalis. I think that honestly trade people civ's are often forgotten throughout history, although trade is one of the biggest drivers of diversity and cultural exchange.
>biggest drivers of diversity
>drivers of diversity
PAX VAN TIBI GELI MAR STA
Celtic language used to be everywhere in Europe, what went wrong /his/?
Was Mao theDong actually evil or is that just another meme?
Sure, many millions of people in China died, but he also did good things like: educational reforms, cleaning up the agriculture, building factories and schools, giving free meals for the poor, starting an extensive space program and other stuff too. Today China is the biggest country in the world, with a strong economy, very advanced infrastructure and trains. Would China really be in the same position today without Mao?
Mao dindu nuffin except make his regional overseers scared of him and thus they over-represented the success of like having iron smelters in regular peoples' houses or moving all the intellectuals out to the boonies to farm
The real meme is the thought that he was competent in anything that wasn't military oriented.
But, overall, he did what any other competent Chinese leader should have done, which is unite China in one single nation-state.
Economically, there's a reason why the Dengists are the majority in the CCP right now, and Mao is shunned and kept as some sorta "father of the nation" figure.
Wasn't the whole impaling thing kind of overkill?
What are the most savage, brutal, merciless, and overall terrifying civilizations to have existed? Why?
Do words only have meaning in a sense of falsifaction? That is we only know what a word means once we know what it does NOT mean?
Or is Derrida correct that a word only has meaning by referring it yet another word, which itself only has meaning by referring to yet another word, unto infinity rendering the concept of meaning shallow.
Or is Wittgenstein correct in his Philosophical investigation?
What is the correct linguistic theory about how words come come to have meaning (if they do at all)?
Words have meaning through association and function.
That is, either a word represents something tangible, or it conjoins/distinguishes words that represent something tangible, or it is in some way related to words that represent something tangible.
You should do gender studies, even that's more valuable to the world than philosophy of language.
>That is, either a word represents something tangible
So "word" "philosophy" "value" "way" must have no meaning than, since they are not tangeable.
Your explanation is self-contradicting.
Did Japs really make the best firearms of their era?
Thoughts on moral relativism?
Most overrated philosophers in history?
>inb4 heidegger cause nazi
Genesis implies structure. Structure implies genesis. Outside creation lies either God or Sunyata or Ein Sof. If such energies are responsible for creation, they must be within creation as well. Tell me then, is it possible to achieve (re)union with the divine self? Figures from Christ to Buddha have made such claims but modern scholarship lays doubt to the existence of said people. What is your take?
>"Like, woah! What if we unleashed the power of decaying atoms in a bomb! Get me FDR on line one!"
>"Like, woah! What if something's economic worth on the free market was mostly decided by how much it cost to create that thing!"
You can go back in time and stop one of these thoughts from occurring, saving many lives in the process. Choose wisely.
How this is even a question? Marx is objectively best choice. You can't stop science by killing one scientist. Someone else would come up with atom bomb sooner or later.
What was Hitler's / Nazi Germany's most fatal mistake in WWII?
how could Muhammad be illiterate if he was a merchant?
Isn't reading kind of required to be a merchant?
He wasn't illiterate. It's a made up idea to further promote that he must have been special.
The justification comes from a part of the Quran which says he isn't a person of the book. This is taken to mean illiterate, but it actually means a gentile, a non jew, and it is used in that way other times. It's to say that though Muhammad wasn't a Jew he was still a prophet.
The man must have been able to read and probably write because he was a merchant, and more crucially, specific numerals didn't exist at that point, letters were used...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>The justification comes from a part of the Quran which says he isn't a person of the book
wow, is that really where the interpretation for that particular meme comes from? That is about as vague as anything written in the Bible.
considering the Quran is meant to be taken literally, I would interpret it as he isnt a mathmatician/philosopher/educated elite. That would make more sense than HE DONT LIKE BOOKS MUST MEAN HE CANT READ.
then again, the entire meme is meant...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
What are the arguments for and against the natural equality of man?
"Man" and "humanity" don't exist. It's a loose category we apply to similarly shaped fleshy objects, but where we draw the line is arbitrary. Are peasants human? Niggers? Neanderthals? Chimpanzees? Even drawing the standard at being able to interbreed is kinda arbitrary.
Why do so many secularists see pain as innately bad?