Once and for all, what are the differences between Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism?
>>383478
The only question should be 'what are the differences between Orthodox and Catholicism (and other Apostolic Christians like Oriental Orthodox)'. Protestantism doesn't matter at all and is impossible to defend in the day and age we live in now with information/history at everyone’s finger tips. It is simply not Christianity as it was ever practised for the first 2000 years.
>>383571
Not OP, but could you explain why it's impossible to defend?
>>383571
Christianity was practiced wrong for the first 2000 years, the first schismatic behavior can be documented to the conflict between Peter and Paul, judaizers and the universalists, etc.
Thoughts on her/her work?
>inb4 she uses big words
>>382867
Has she done anything significant other than saying that gender is performed?
>>382884
Not that I can think of. But she's been a controversial figure for it. Especially from feminists it seems.
>>382903
I find the entire debate irritating since it comes down to where we want to draw the line for what counts as gender. If we sufficiently restrict what counts, then Butler is clearly correct. The content of our concepts "male" and "female" have fluctuated with regard to the roles we play, our fashion, our behavior and so on. It isn't clear to me that gender is just these things though and I'm skeptical that we could give any definite answer to the question of what domain "gender" necessarily covers. It seems more important that we research and analyze the things that could potentially fall under the domain (fashion, biology, cultural roles, etc.) rather than argue over where we want to draw lines for words.
Tell me about fascist Italy. Why did it preform so poorly? Was Mussolini incompetent or was there nothing he could have done?
>>382526
Italians can't warfare.
>>382555
*ahem*
Southern Italy was semi-feudal, to the point where nobles would stiill go out and collect day-to-day laborers for their fiefs, like 200 years ago.
Mussolini thought that Hitler was going to declare war later, and Italian re-armament was doing too well.
Mussolini's economic policies were pretty shit. For instance, he strove for autarky in his country. So during the "War on Grain", Italian grain production skyrocketed. At the expense of all other crops.
Greatest man to ever live?
>>382393
You can't really quantity greatness
>>382402
>everything is relative! you can never compare anyone or anything!
what the fuck is up with you killjoys?
The problem of induction is a form of superstition. Humefags BTFO
>>382267
ayer was scared of death and despised life so much, also called a nihilist, that he wished that there was no rebirth.
also, the induction is such a basic issue, along with solipsism, that the sterility of any rationalism to go beyond it shows how rationalism is pleb tier. Empiricism trumps anything and makes the rationalist faints before his lack of result to show why we should have more faith in our intellect than in our other five senses.
animals behave just as humans having faith in induction behaves: give a cat some food for two days, and you can be sure that he will show up at the exact same time and the exact same spot, to ask for food, on the third day.
induction shows up as soon as you have faith in your delirium called space and time. as soon as you make you intellect cease, you escape any abstraction/speculation/generalization/abstraction/delirium/fantasy and you lose faith since you reach knowledge. the rationalist despises this result and frustrated as he is from his inability to stop speculating, he prefers to come down to terrorism in calling any non rationalist, typically any empiricist, a pleb.
as soon as you tame your spirit/mind, and take your spirit for what it is (another sense), you become a semi-god.
>>382267
top kek - implying ayer's reductio doesn't attempt to reduce all metaphysical problems to pseudo-problems (e.g. knowing oneself requires sensory perception, but how does one know one has such a perception). there is nothing particularly perspicacious about the arguments either - see Strawson's ordinary language argument.
Here's the correct - vaguely Tarskian - solution: existential predicates regarding the objects of propositions that form predicates regarding existence cannot have a truth value that is evaluated on the same linguistic level, but a meta-linguistic one.
Is empire the natural political form of Europe?
>SPQR
>Charlemagne
>HRE to an extent
>Napoleon
Face it, Europe wants to be unified under a centralized (at least nominally) rule. European states, even the big ones, are too small and interdependent to look each for its own, and the small ones are just puppet states anyway. The Westphalian system was merely a short episode that was falling apart already by the late 1800s, and the current system of nation states is already largely in decline.
>>381628
No, given the fact how Euroniggers love to beat up the cunt that wants to make an Empire out of them.
>>381628
>HOLY
>ROMAN
>EMPIRE
German please stop shitposting. Nobody wants your filfthy Empire.
Did black Africans make anything other than huts? Did they have anything else?
>>380623
did germanics make anything other than huts? Did they have anything else?
>>380623
The Great Mosque of Djenne is just about the greatest African architectural achievement. It's not impressive, but y'know... it's not a hut I guess.
>>380848
>>380623
You've also got the Tomb of Askia the Great. Y'know, it's still made of mud but at least it's not a hut.
Give me a summary of the Peloponnesian war.
Athens thinks they're amazing
Sparta kicks their shit in
Athens and Sparta had an uneasy relationship since the 6th century.
Athens had a pretty great Tyrant who made the city the greatest in Greece. When he died his sons were left in charge. They weren't terrible rulers but were less respected by the allies their father held and by the people. Eventually one of them was killed by a gay lover in a a 3-way lovers quarrel.
The remaining brother lost his shit and began a reign of (forgive me) tyranny. He started rounding up and executing people and making life generally miserable.
Some Athenians, actually a family banned from ever returning to Athens (the family of Pericles mother) financed the opposition and got the Spartans to come and kick the Tyrant out.
The Spartans decided they set up their own Tyrant and occupy the city. This went badly for them as the Athenians refused their 'offer' or 'terms' however you want to frame it, and created lasting animosity between the two cities.
After Darius took the Persian throne from Cambyses the Athenians and allies decided to finance a rebellion of the Ionian coast.
1/?
>>382310
keep going pls
Let's discuss The Republic of Plato.
Is Polemarchus the worst debater in world history? He enters the conversation in Book I with a strong and plausible definition of justice, and allows himself to be converted within minutes by Socrates' utter nonsense.
How easy would it have been for him to put up an argument?
>No Socrates, being good at guarding something has nothing to do with your ability to steal. We have already distinguished doctors, lyre players, bricklayers, and others. I see no reason not to distinguish between thiefs and guards - and a quote from Homer about a single mythical figure won't convince me by the way.
>The grouping of friend and enemy is based on existential commitments, not any objective valuation of goodness or badness.
>No Socrates, I believe the harsh treatment of moral agents who are capable of reflection may have beneficial consequences, unlike the harsh treatment of horses, because these two objects of harsh treatment are qualitiatively different.
Plato is the worst debater in history
>Plato, do you mean that A is true?
>No, that's not what I meant at all
>Everyone else marvels at his genius
Aristotle is better
>>380806
>aristotle
>heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones
>>380810
Yes, when it came to science he was retarded, but his philosophy wins here
How the fuck do you even affirm the eternal recurrence?
I mean, I get the fact that life has to involve SOME degree of suffering, but when so many millions have had virtually no say in that suffering, when so many people have lived lives that amount to nothing more than constant pain and torture, I start to think that only the Devil could possibly say "yes, I want this to repeat forever!"
Was that the point? Is this why Nietzsche claimed he was the most "evil" person who ever lived? Or was he just being edgy for the sake of attracting readers?
Because even if your life was as "fruitful" as you would have wanted it to be, I don't understand how you can arrogate something like the eternal return for EVERYONE. It makes no sense.
The point is to live your life to the fullest. Nietzsche's conception of embracing life was that you should literally embrace everything, that includes everything nice and pleasurable as well as painful and horrific.
By creating your own values and your own meaning. That makes life worth living
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Don't WHINE when things are painful. USE THAT SHIT! Find the hidden truth in suffering, burn it as fuel. The Ubemench should even seek out suffering as a way to strengthen himself, he wants a challenge.
Who would win between
>13th Century Knights and Spartan Hoplites
>Roman legionaries vs Vikings
>Samuaris vs Roman legionaries
And i don't mean 1 v 1 duels, i mean equal units of say 300 men.
>13th Century Knights and Spartan Hoplites
Knights
>Roman legionaries vs Vikings
Roman
>Samuaris vs Roman legionaries
Roman
>>377820
>13th Century Knights and Spartan Hoplites
The knights, easily. More mobile, and vastly better arms and armor.
>Roman legionaries vs Vikings
Legionaires. Soldiers>Pirates.
>Samuaris vs Roman legionaries
Depends on era for what constitutes a "Samurai". But in general, I'd bet on the Nips; Samurai were horse archers in a lot of their incarnations, and the Romans tended to have trouble with that.
>>377834
>The knights, easily. More mobile, and vastly better arms and armor.
But the Spartans would just have to hold.
When will the Nation State become obsolete, and what will replace it?
>>377610
Supranational unions, perhaps. The EU is a good example of the sorts of federations that might develop.
>>377610
the UN is trying its best to keep the nation state a thing, and either world socialist republic or the resurgence of empires
Okay there's a whole thread about how "boring" and "unimaginative" warfare was between the turn of the 18th century and the development of the Maxim gun in the late 19th century.
Well let me offer a whole counter thread where we can explain exactly why this style of warfare became prominent, and why it was in no way stupid to fight in massed infantry formations with gunpowder weaponry.
Let's go through this point by point:
>How did this stupid warfare come about?
Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries gunpowder became increasingly featured in wars waged by European monarchs. From the Battle of Ravenna in 1512 to the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631, gunpowder demonstrated its ability to defeat both heavily armed and armored infantry and cavalry with ease.
By 1700 the majority of a military's resources were put towards the purchase, maintenance, training and ammunition for gunpowder armies.
>Why would they just stand there like idiots?
>Why didn't they spread out?
Gunpowder weapons were terribly inaccurate until the development of machined rifled barreling in the latter part of the 1800s.
In order for smoothbore muskets to be effective as a battlefield weapon, they need to be fired en masse against a large target. Initially they were deployed as elements of larger combined arms units with pikemen, until eventually becoming the main element of a fighting unit, where discipline was taught to maximize reload speed and therefore unit firepower. This was demonstrated in the Swedish army's victory over the Germans at Breitenfeld.
>Still, why would they stand so close together? That makes them a huge target to be shot.
One word: Cavalry.
A unit of horsemen will literally stampede through a dispersed group of men. There will be almost 100% casualties.
Arm the men with bayonets and discipline them to withstand heavy enemy fire in tight formation, and they can become practically invulnerable to cavalry attacks from the front.
A gunpowder army from this era is a giant machine designed to send rounds down range. The best way to do this is by standing close together and using discipline and drill tactics to absorb more fire than the enemy.
Simply put, these soldiers were not only fighting in the most modern and effective technological manner possible, they were also some of the bravest warriors to ever wear a uniform. It took a true man to stand tall on battlefields such as those.
XVII century guns weren"t nearly as accurate as XVIII century guns, thus the linear formations weren't that common nor that effective as demonstrate in the annihilation of the Swedes by the Spanish Tercios in the battle of Nordlingen.
XVIII saw the general introduction of standing national armies as well, which along the more accurate and bigger range muskets allowed for the supremacy of linear infantry shooting en masse, usually at short range to maximize effectiveness, against another linear infantry formation. It was, in short, technology what precipitated this kind of stupid warfare, that for the first time in history, neglected individual skill, bravery and personal initiative as factors incurring in the outcome of a battle.
An ancient greek guy armed with his sword and shield, f.i, depended entirely on his own skill to prevail and survive in a battle; in the XVIII on the contrary a guy in the first line of infantry was there to shoot and get shot helplessly, irregardless of his bravery, skill and initiative.
Tl; dr; sheeps.
Coming form an entirely ignorant standpoint, I'd like to know how the hell a mass of men, no matter how compact and organized, could take a full-speed cavalry charge in the face and not be trampled anyway. Bayonets are relatively small, seems to me you'd need pikes to half their momentum
Does punk subculture just allow participants to engage in alternative forms of cultural expression, or does it provide participants with the tools to actively resist political and cultural hegemony?
It was basically just chav culture that we look back on with nostalgia. Poor northerners trying to look tough and have some sense of identity while the privileged ones in London counted their dosh and laughed from afar.
"PUNK" IS A SUBCULTURE OF ESCAPISM; THE "PUNK", MUCH LIKE THE "ANARCHIST", IS MOTIVATED BY HATE, AND COMPELLED BY ATTACHMENT, THUS THE "PUNK", IN ITS FAILED ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THAT WHICH IT HATES, IT FALLS INTO DEEPER IMMERSION, AND ULTIMATE ABSORPTION INTO THAT WHICH IT HATES; INTO THAT WHICH MADE IT WHAT IT IS.
THE "PUNK" IS NOT A REBEL, BUT A REVOLTER; IT SEEKS AN ALTERNATE REALITY, NOT AN ALTERNATIVE ONE; IT WANTS TO RESHAPE REALITY TO FIT ITS OWN MATERIALISTIC, PESSIMISTIC, AND NIHILISTIC, SELF, AND FOR THIS VERY REASON, "PUNK" SENTIMENTS WITHIN SOCIETY, ARE EXPLOITED BY THOSE IN POWER TO DIVERT AUTHENTIC REVOLUTIONARY AND REBELLIOUS FORCES, AND NEUTER THEM.
As a former punk I would say the former, and that it's bloody good enough.
why did god harden pharaoh's heart instead of letting the Hebrews be freed outright.
i mean Moses was doing gods work, why complicate it?
please help anon.
>>374148
Becaus he isn't actually real.
Because its a cooler story
Because Moses and Pharoh were bros, and God was jealous of their bromance and tried to drive a wedge between them because God is a jealous bitch. Hell hath no fury like a Jew-God scorned.
