Is that the DEA guy from Breaking Bad?

Is that Aleister Crowley?

>>1385109
Very much so

>muh immutable historical forces that aren't measurable or predictive

Nah, use Joseph Tainter instead.

>>1385109
partly, yes.

We all can agree that he's extremely, utterly underrated, and his followers (ie:Toynbee) were full on retarded?

>>1385231
at least he doesnt try to offer an inherently false sense of objectivity or empiricity, that is always wrong everytime in historical analysis.

That he actually admitted that they werent measurable and predictive just atests to the coherence of his thought

>>1385234
I'm unfamiliar with Toynbee. What makes him so retarded?

YIPPIE KI YAY MISTAH FALCOLN

Jesus Christ ! Marie... they're minerals

>>1385109
Agent 47?

Isaac Schraeder?

Dont' kill him Jack. I will tell you where i buried my money.

>>1385109
We are bald and foolish

>>1385109
On far more things than not, and in basically all of his essential points, I would say he was, as long as the horizons on the concept of "correctness" are properly seen in this field (about which horizons he himself wrote quite a bit). I have never yet seen an effort at "refuting" his basic ideas written by someone who even came halfway to understanding what (usually little) they'd read of him.

Also pretty much agree with this: >>1385234. Maybe not "full on", but their work basically comes off as pointless by comparison. (In fact, the man himself would probably have had much to say about Toynbee's ideas vs. his own if he'd lived long enough, in line with the chapters under the heading "Prussians and Englishmen" in "Prussianism and Socialism".)