I've been taking a course on Buddhism this semester and I've found myself pretty impressed with the tradition's philosophy as a whole. However, I've found myself wondering about the philosophical opposition to some of Buddhism's core ideas (Four Noble Truth's etc etc). Can anyone provide me with some examples of flaws that people have found in Buddhist thinking through the ages? I'm particularly interested in the input of other Asian traditions, such as Daoism and Confucianism, rather than Christian or Muslim critiques.
If you want to sit around with your head in the clouds doing nothing for yourself, then Buddhism is the religion for you.
>>223064
Get killed, ignorant fucktard, don't talk shit if you don't know shit about shit desu senpai
>>223064
>aspiring to a higher ideal
>spending your time reflecting on how to be better as a person
>spending the rest of your time working to make others' lives better
Sounds like you need to take a step back, anon.
What is the most autistic thing you have ever done that is vaguely related to history.
When I was a freshman in high school I used make really shitty maps that would show changing political borders. I never wrote down anything about my imaginary continent but I still look back and cringe
>>219043
Oh I still do that friend. As an adult out of university. I enjoy thinking about political and historical events through the lens of realistic fantasy.
>>219043
Please
I wrote up whole histories for my fake continent, including fakes kings, their reigns, and their accomplishments.
I worked on it for 2 whole years all throughout high school instead of taking notes in class to pass the time. I still have them in a draw somewhere, some 50 pages of notes and scribbles.
>>219043
I read way more into my games of civilization than the rules and common sense dictate.
If you hate him so much, point out where he is wrong.
Here is a random video that came up in my feed. It doesnt seem particularly bad.
Bit reddit on the humor side, but not wrong, and not bad.
https://youtu.be/UN-II_jBzzo
10 minutes to watch it, and another 3-5 to write your post critiquing it. That is, if you can muster actual critique, rather than just repeat how much of a SJW tumblr history revisionist he is without naming any factual mistakes he makes.
Also, Crash Course History thread, a thread about the HISTORY related channel about HISTORY.
>>210660
Honestly I like what they do with that show, because they clearly actually wrote the show more to make you think about history and to try and give casual history fans more of the tools required to really appreciate it rather than just "here is some events"
>>210660
Honestly I don't dislike his videos that much, it just irritates me that teenage girls think watching a ten minute video makes them an expert on the subject
>>210679
>OHH THEY'RE SMALL GUYS FOR YOUUUU LAWD
Why did Europeans forget how to draw with any sense of reality in the Middle Ages?
White people were all blind in one eye until 1624
>>205814
>forget
It was never known before either
All those painting you see about Ancient Greece and Rome are from the Renaissance
>>205820
New History Memes thread, the old one hit image limit.
>>186954
2/2
This one needs a good filename.
>>186968
Germany tries to relax?
>Hi, my name is Spartacus
Must cold in there..
No!
I am Spartacus!
W-we Greeks have bigger dicks than that I s-swear.
Why did John Brown want to abolish slavery so badly that he started a war that killed over 600,000 people? Couldn't he have been more diplomatic and achieved better results without killing so many people?
>>94470
He was a religious crazy, like most of the abolitionists.
Because you dumb fuck, he used to be a slave.
Do you really think slaveholders were willing to compromise?
Young Colonel Gaddafi.
>>93837
lets just get stalin out of the way
>>93837
>He looked like Schwarzenegger
>>93837
also castro
How can the Church of Rome justify the amount of power they confer on the Pope given the Second Canon of the First Council of Constantinople? Even if she didn't ratify the Third Canon, she accepts the Second.
And how can the Church of Rome justify the filioque when it wasn't in the Creed drafted by the Council of Nicene?
Catholics think original sin is transmitted through sexual conception, so do you think a cloned human would be free from original sin?
How can you justify Purgatory and the idea that humans can "pay off" their sins? Isn't it kind of perverse to think of sin as a debt that can be settled? I know of course that you conceive of Christ as settling the human sin debt (an idea not really present in Orthodoxy), but if that was the big thing Christ did in Catholicism, couldn't you find salvation without Christ by just paying off your sin debt?
An aside question, and not so much a question of heterodoxy: what made you guys start approving the use of modernist art and music in worship? We both know that religious aesthetics have a spiritual dimension, they aren't just cosmetic as with Protestants--so radically tampering with them seems...risky.
>>93575
According to Catholic doctrine:
>all men inherit ancestral sin from Adam;
>God descended upon Earth as the Son in order to free mankind from this sin, was crucified, died etc.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
>Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
The theory of evolution states that we (as Homo Sapiens) gradually evolved from other creatures. This implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed. We evolved gradually as an entire population of tens of thousands over a very slow period of time. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo
If Adam and Eve never existed, no one fell, and we cannot inherit ancestral sin from no one. Moreover, there wasn't any reason which Jesus had to be born for, anything he had to free us from.
The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents"
Pope Pius writes:
>The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
>>93658
I'm Orthodox, but afaik I know the Catholic Church sees evolution as totally compatible with Adam and Eve. It's just that Adam and Eve wouldn't be literally as they were in Genesis, but the first human man and first human man and woman as products of evolution.
>How can the Church of Rome justify the amount of power they confer on the Pope given the Second Canon of the First Council of Constantinople?
From newadvent - I think this answers your first question and provides insight into the third canon:
The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order.
And how can the Church of Rome justify the filioque when it wasn't in the Creed drafted by the Council of Nicene?
Arguably it was - it was a mixup between the Latin and the Greek. It was also meant as an affirmation against Arianism and Semi-Arianism which was still a problem. It shouldn't have been done unilaterally.
> so do you think a cloned human would be free from original sin?
Interesting question but I think you might be confusing current Church teaching on the matter (which I don't think is at the level of Dogma) with traducianism? I think Orthobros would have the same answer to your question.
>How can you justify Purgatory and the idea that humans can "pay off" their sins?
Anselmian satisfaction theory of atonement isn't Dogma, though it is widely taught. I personally don't accept it. As for purgation you guys believe in it too, just less elaborated. Theosis continues after death for most of us I imagine.
> what made you guys start approving the use of modernist art and music in worship?
No idea. Some say freemasonic infiltration, others the spirit of the 60's and 70's - whatever the cause it's a rupture from our own liturgical tradition and has no place.
t. Catholic who strongly desires reunion
Why did Nietzsche confuse platonic and gnostic thoughts on the material for Christian thought when its so obviously not the case?
Pythagoraians witch Socrates and Plato were heavily influenced by believed that life is horrible and that the after life is spectacular. Plato said on his deathbed that he wanted a chicken in acient Greece ment that he was celebrating dieing. Christianity was formalized by many people who heavily influenced by the pythagoreans and Plato. Thomas Aquinus took the edge off aristole and embedded Plato deeper into the Christian tradition. Some people think there is reference to Socrates and Plato in the bible too.
>>94005
Yes but that doesn't mean everything was accepted. Aquinas supported Aristotle's metaphysics and followed suit with all post-ancient scientists in dismissing Aristotle's physics.
So I've spent all of the last 10 minutes creating this map of countries whence historically significant empires/civilizations etc. formed throughout history.
For example, Western Europe has the colonial empires. Saudi Arabia has Islam and the subsequent expansion of it. Iran/Iraq/Egypt don't need explanation. Pakistan and India have the Indus civilization, India has many more, etc. I chose to include the Incas and Aztecs/Mayas, not because they were historically significant, but because they managed to develop fairly impressive civilizations in total isolation, (unlike for example Sub-Saharan Africa and Aboriginals in Australia)
Countries in South-America, Canada and Australia might not be red but the fact of the matter is that most ancestors of those populations are European anyway. I chose to make the US red because they dominate the world today.
Slavs and African diaspora, please contain your potential anger, this is not a map to show superiority or inferiority.
Do you guys agree or disagree? Can anyone make a case as to why I should include other countries (or perhaps exclude a country)? I'd like to learn about new civilizations.
You mean civilizations that are relevant to you?
Do you understand that every person is going to have different criteria and standards for what constitutes relevancy?
Someone from fucking Nigeria or whatever is probably going to shade most of central, West, East and Northern Africa but will leave Europe grey aside from Britain and France.
Looks accurate enough, though I'd argue it's hard to agree on whether you should Highlight a country according to whether it inherited the name of the ancient empire, the demographic most closely resembles that of the ancient empire, or highlight instead the geographical area that made up the beginnings of the empire.
>>91742
You forgot Ethiopia and Indonesia.
What went wrong /his/? And could it have been saved?
>>91580
If they weren't Mexicans. The primary job of Latin American politicians is fighting each other.
>>91580
Reagan amnesty
Another question, why did Mexico survive as such a large country, but Central America fractured? Geographical separation because of mountains?
What does /his/ know about East Africa and the Cushitic people? The only place in Africa which beat the colonial powers, apparently. The location biblical place of Cush and Put too.
Must have some /his/torians here who know something about this fascinating place in Africa.
Some reading I found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Punt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervish_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_Pastoral_Neolithic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic
I know some East Africans on /int/ who consider themselves black witch is weird
I've been to Ethiopia, it was pretty cool.
Don't fuck with Afars.
>>91458
East Africans are black, though.
What is truth?
>>91298
An illusion that let go of its' purpose.
The grammatical and syntactical structure of your question already begs the question. What "is" truth assumes that truth is a substantive. Furthermore, you also presuppose the meaning of "is-ness." So before we ask the question of what is truth, we must answer the question of Being.
Well, earlier in on in John, Jesus had said to God that 'thy word is truth'. Pilate was a dick and didn't give Jesus a chance to respond before leaving to address the crowd.
What if the Anglo-Saxons won the battle of Hastings?
Then English language would still be Germanic
>>90963
England remains in the 'Scandinavian' sphere but is too powerful for any other major 'Viking' invasions. There is still probably an influx of castle building and Romanesque architecture in the late 11th century, though obviously on a smaller scale. Recent archaeology suggests several motte-and-bailey castles (mostly on the Welsh Marches) that were previously assumed to be Norman may come from the reign of Edward the Confessor. Other than that hard to say really, it depends on how stable the Godwinsson dynasty proves itself to be. This has wider implications on the continent as well, especially for France depending on how bad a state the Normans are left in
>>90963
Sweyn (?) Or some other northman threat attacks and takes advantage of Anglo Saxon weakness. William had to fight (well scare) them off in the north soon after he conquered. The Normans were strong enough to keep their win, otherwise the island keeps trading hands.
