Would he have made a good president?
Better question, would he?
>>1306065
Probably
An agnostic is an atheist, because knowledge is equal to belief. Humans cannot be fully objective by definition: they know gravity, they believe in gravity. They know stars, they believe in stars. They know logic, they believe in logic. They don't know real dragons, they don't believe in real dragons. To know is simply to strongly believe.
Differentiating between equal verbs is even the Proof that humans know what they believe and believe what they know, because even if another human source verifies that belief, it will be a human verification, therefore subject to belief and subjective observation as well: "-He knows you are lying" implies that I believe you are lying as much as he believes you are lying, it is a strong belief due to collective validation.
It is as much a belief because many wrong affirmations are collectively validated, and many are even validated by majorities. Collective knowledge happens just by a collective experience: if by chance we have same dreams, we are now holders of collective knowledge. If we watch the same movies, no matter how horrible and fake they are, this is our collective knowledge because it is empirical. If we experience similar delusions, it is just as much collective knowledge as anything a human can grasp.
Perfect knowledge therefore, can only be possessed by God, all humans have are beliefs and stronger beliefs, which are beliefs nevertheless. In a binary question as belief in God, you can only believe or not believe, and that is it.
There may be some genuine fence-sitters who we could call "agnostics", but what is really dumb is to define agnostic as somebody who admits that he doesn't know for sure. By that definition agnostic could be either someone
1) who believes in God and acts accordingly
2) who doesn't believe and lives his life as if God didn't exist
as long as both accept the possibility that they are wrong. Categorizing 1) as a theist and 2) as an atheist is more practical.
>>1306351
Possibilites aside
Thats not what actually happens
Agnostics are 99% of the time the 2 variety.
Coming from a materialistic background, I have grown interested in the mystical layers of religion, such as Orthodox monasticism and Islamic sufism and the thoughts of the likes of Evola and Guenon in particular.
Not having a deep understanding of philosophy, I'd like to get an explanation in layman terms on what exactly are the implications of the view that several religious traditions and initiatory paths deriving and being valid in the light of a primal Tradition from a metaphysical(not historical!) perspective.
What attracts me to mysticism is that I can compensate with my heart where my mind does not allow, but if one adopts the perennialist view, to me it seems that it is has no depth. How can you partake in the Holy Christian Mysteries while at the same time viewing just as valid other mystical paths?
In my (lack of) understanding, it seems at best to be nothing more than glorified aestheticism and at worst LARPism.
>>1305428
I have a suspicion about mysticism. That it only works when it does not violate the laws of physics. Which means mostly never.
>>1305428
>nothing more than glorified aestheticism and at worst LARPism.
/thread
Is he ever coming back /his/?
Only when Britain is in most desperate need.
So if you're British, be cheerful. As bad as things are, they can definitely get worse, but on the plus side when they reach maximum shittiness you'll have Arthur back.
>>1305962
I can imagine it now. King Arthur pouring out of the glowing gate of heaven, his warhost at his flanks, skewering the saracen mayor of London on his lance. He steps down from his steed and passes the faire blade to Sir Farage. Britain shall be cleansed.
>>1305971
As far as Arthur is concerned, the only thing that is happening is that the family of Palomedes is giving the Saxons a taste of their own medicine.
>>1305120
I agree.
>>1305120
Cute.
Not wew if true
What went wrong?
They lost World War I.
thread theme song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p39ulIfnzc
Did anything ever go right?
Was the Taishō period the most underrated period in Japan?
>>1304799
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcZFgzhf6wM
>>1304799
https://youtu.be/nt3ZTD5yZWc
was that the period that Japan succeeded in putting the meat into Korea?
if yes then yes
I am of the conviction religion should be discouraged and openly rebuffed. Not persecuted, due to the tendency of this to create martyrs and add fire to the fervor of already deluded believers, but simply scorned and treated as a dangerous and archaic - if somewhat amusing - remnant of pre-modern thought. In the same way that defunct ideas/notions such as alchemy or the Galenic corpus or the Miasma theory of disease are no longer considered in any decision-making on part of individuals or groups or taken seriously by people, religion should not be exempt. And yet, people continue to make exemptions and allowances for religious belief, treating it as though it were 'real' or valid despite providing no real contributions or evidence for its own existence, and in spite of its well-documented history of abuses and scandals and record of fundamentalism that directly goes against modern secular attempts to increase quality of life (and all simply for the sake of a supposed celestial dictator who has never been seen).
No persecution, but certainly, the end of tax exemptions to all religious organizations in developed nations. That's a good first step. Followed by the end of political "alliances" with religious groups (for example, LGBT groups aligning with supposedly 'tolerant' Christian ministries, etc.).
And this should be on an official level.
>>1304628
There are many spelling mistakes in what you wrote. You seem like an illiterate moron.
>>1304628
>this post
>>1304628
>I am of the conviction religion should be discouraged and openly rebuffed
It already happens. Why do you think most people are irreligious?
whats the point of philosophy?
Philosophy means love of wisdom. It's just for fun, bro.
Do you have a question?
How will you go about answering this question?
Enter philosophy
>>1304563
It's to improve yer shit sarge!
Daily reminder amerindians
did not invent the wheel
did not invent bronze
did not domesticate animals
did not invent ships
did not study astronomy with their pyramids
If you repeat nonsense and lies like ornamental wheel imitations and obsidian cutting through steel you are an ethno-revisionist neo nazi racist
still the most rich country
We did invent all that shit while you germanic niggers were slinging shit stop baiting
>>1304549
Europeans didnt invent any of this either.
What was Europe doing when Egyptians were building pyramids? Oh, that's right, being niggers.
純金董,
下面的褲子,
我所有的暨將不逗辛勞,
龍大和不可戰勝的勃起,
只要我的洞接管我的身體。
我們的巨人悸動勃起破我們的褲子,
而我們暨是廣闊的,不可阻擋的。
越南盾綿延無限,
精液湍流洋溢。
>>1304438
> Gold Dong,
> The following pants,
> All I will not tease cum hard,
> Long Japanese invincible erection,
> As long as my hole over my body.
> Our giant throbbing erection break our pants,
> And we are cum vast, unstoppable.
> Vietnamese Dong stretches infinitely,
> Semen turbulent filled.
>>1304438
>Dong of solid gold,
>Underneath the pants,
>All of my cum will don't tease to toil,
>Long, big and undefeatable erection,
>As long as my dong takes over my body.
>Our giant throbbing erection is breaking our pants,
>And our cum is vast and unstoppable.
>The dong stretches infinitely,
>The semen brims with turbulence.
Baт ape юy тaлкинг aбoyт?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oEWA7UglB4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdI5y3iwhLU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlzZe2PP1h0
>>1304406
>Racism
So invented the gun, /his/?
Earliest exampme of a gun was found in southern europe. Was it Ottomans? Europeans? I know China invented the first firearm, which was like a packed tube thing with projectiles in it but who invented the first gun?
Gunpowder came first, and was probably made somewhere in China.
>>1304339
Thats not what I asked.
>>1304339
wasn't there also some european monk who wrote down the recipe for gunpowder around the same time?
I know this thread is doomed from the start, but what the hell.
Can we talk about West African history? Anything from prehistory up to the 1800s.
I put together a summary of the region's history that I find useful, but it's pretty incomplete (like I don't know where the Hausa would fit into this);
>c. 5000-2500 BC: Pastoral nomads in the Sahara
>c. 2500-500 BC: Crop-based farming emerges in the Sahel and spreads south into the forest regions
>c. 500 BC - 700 AD: Ironworking spreads across the region, increasingly complex cultures like the Nok and Djenne-Djenno emerge
>c. 700 AD - 1450 AD: Trans-Saharan trade opens up and stimulates economic and social development, true 'civilization' emerges and flourishes in places like Ghana, Mali, and Yorubaland, Islam is introduced
>c. 1450-1650 AD: Europeans contact coastal regions, open up coastal trade, Benin flourishes, Songhai and the Morocco dominate the Sahel
>c. 1650-1880 AD: Economy and society increasingly dominated by slave trade, population declines, economic and social development stagnates, culture regresses, Jihadists dominate Islamic regions, Dahomey, Oyo, and Ashantis dominate coastal regions
>c. 1880-1960: Colonial rule
Some stuff worth discussing;
>Did ironworking develop independently or was it introduced from Carthage or Meroe?
>Did the black death effect the region, and to what extent?
>Why was there no use of wheels?
>What effect did the slave trade have on the region, was it only limited to coastal regions?
Because west African history is filled with losers and losers are BORING
>>1304335
So every non-European people ever?
>>1304331
Was there any trans-Saharan travel prior to the existence of camels and the trade routes? I'd like to imagine that the Garamantians and people like that didn't just have their backs against the wall pre-1200.
Do you believe there is a distinction between appearances and things-in-themselves, i.e.. objects as they appear to us and objects as they are in and of themselves?
>>1304189
things in themselves are shapeless and infinite, they are pure information or in another word energy, so they're obviously not as we perceive them, for that matter we experience things differently to varying degrees just by having individual subjectivity for example two people can experience the same song very differently.
>>1304189
Nah, that's a metaphysical idea, which Kant says is impossible to have
"Things in themselves" are things as they are in the mind of God. The answer is yes and no.
