Hey /his/ Tell me some of the craziest shit rulers have thought or done throughout history
Did someone actually make a manga based on Leviathan?
Are they the hero or villain?
>>1410208
>Did someone actually make a manga based on Leviathan?
in a way jack chic counts, leviathan in the christian context that is
>>1410202
This reminds me of that Clive Barker story. You guys know the one
Was the US involvement in the Korean War justifiable?
Sure, half the population lives in one of the best countries in the world but half in one of the worst. Wouldn't the whole country have turned out relatively moderately, like China, if the North won?
(photo source:)
http://life-magazine-scrapbook.tumblr.com/tagged/korean-war
The country would be united if China didn't get involved and kick Americans out of the north.
>>1413546
You mean, the country would have still been a dictatorship under Kim Il Sung, had the USAnot intervened. The crazy person.
We don't really know. Kim Il Sung was a homicidal, genocidal maniac anyways and probably Juche would be formed regardless. The country still would be doomed to a fate like that of North Korea. Also don't tryst the chinks when they start coming and posting ITT. t. Korean
Why is Stirner so damn popular on this board? I had never heard of him before /his/ and have not seen him referenced elsewhere.
Also, what were the main points of his philosophy?
I keep seeing the spooks meme but I don't know much about him beyond that.
So, Stirner thread then.
>>1406468
>Why is Stirner so damn popular on this board?
/his/inherited it frok /lit/, and he was pooular there because the sketch of him is very iconic/exploitable, and "spook" is a funny word.
>I had never heard of him before /his/ and have not seen him referenced elsewhere.
That's because the Academia of his time and for a significant time before him gobbled on Marx's cock so hard they decided to ignore him because he disagreed with Marx.
He was fairly influential to certain groups such as anarchists and influenced other philosophers. Most notably, Nietzsche. Some even claim Nietzsche plagiarised Stirner.
>>1406496
After him*
Who's your favorite president of the United States of America?
1) as a person
2) as a politician
1) is pic related 2) is Theodore Roosevelt
FDR
Teddy
https://youtu.be/unmdZ7llP8A
>>1401499
Washington and FDR.
Obama
None. I dislike all of them too much to have a favorite politically.
Are we attracted to women due to biology, or societal (learned) attitudes?
Is it at all possible for a heterosexual male to walk past pic related and feel nothing?
it would be a sign of poor health
>>1416468
>Are we attracted to women due to biology, or societal (learned) attitudes?
Both.
>Is it at all possible for a heterosexual male to walk past pic related and feel nothing?
Yes.
>>1416468
Both. Attraction to feminine features is instinctual for males, but it is conditioned and the particulars can be easily re-shaped, likewise for heterosexual females. Very very simple classical conditioning.
Yes, the actual perception of libidinous attitudes is trivially easy to stifle and you don't have to feel them unless you really want to.
Best and worst aspects of Rome's politics
See, your main problem is in the name. "Imperium"
As it turns out, when people who aren't landowners can serve in your army, there is nothing to stop them from marching on your capital instead of the enemies, and taking your stuff instead of theirs.
Once the honeymoon period of the seven good emperors ended, the legions proceeded to garrote Rome to death.
>>1405958
We can only hope.
>>1405976
leggo my legio
I have been becoming more addicted to news, politics, and pol in the past year, though I'm trying to stop. If you're the sort of person who sees /his/ as a home board, are you the same a me or do you see it as hugely pointless and barely watch anything? It does make me question my life when a day's news seemed relevant at the time but was a waste of time.
Was 9/11 even a happening? Was the Iraq war? Was the Arab spring? What was the last genuine non 24 hour news happening IYO?
From my own near zero knowledge of history, the UK since 1945 could be summarised with "Suez crisis and pointless shit." Am I far off the mark?
I'm a current events junkie.
I don't go on /pol/ and /news/ because I don't think there's any way that discussing politics on 4chan can result in anything except for cancer.
But there's also a bunch of socialism and the IRA in recent British history.
It's mostly conflict between people who want a Nordic style social democracy, and rich people.
>It does make me question my life when a day's news seemed relevant at the time but was a waste of time.
what makes it a waste of time to you? why is learning about news or history not productive?
>>1418521
>I have been becoming more addicted to news, politics, and pol in the past year,
Typical weakwilled shithead cancer generation.
Flitting from one distraction to the next
Have you ever read a worthwhile book in your life?
How long will skyscrapers of today last? Of course this is a question of engineering but I think it fits here due to the social-economic importance of these buildings in our society. Do you think these buildings such as the Empire State building, the burj khalifa or even buildings such as the Eiffel tower will last as long as our civilization can sustain itself? I'm sure these questions were asked by ancient Egyptians and Romans, I'm interested in how they differ today.
Can they survive over 1000 years, 2000 years, 10,000 years? Cities of the past have disintegrated, all but few tourist attractions of shells of their former selves. I wonder how our modern building will be viewed in 1000+ years if they're still around.
Presumably it's a question of the structural materials.
Steel skyscrapers would presumably have a harder time than concrete or reinforced concrete skyscrapers.
Of course, you could always Ship of Theseus that shit.
There's also always the possibility that the skyscrapers will die from something other than old age. They tend to be designed for earthquakes and other natural disasters, but I doubt it's 500 year level earthquakes. Plus tsunamis and shit that come around every so often.
Or, you know, social collapse, military action or terrorist attacks.
>...will last as long as our civilization can sustain itself?
As long as our civilization is sustained, and those buildings are deemed culturally important, the buildings will last. They already require inspection and maintenance today, and just letting them rot and rust and eventually collapse is not what anyone would want given that those examples lie deep in their respective city
reminds me of that thunderbirds episode where they move the empire state building
So, seeing as how there's been civ threads on here before, I figured I'd post that it seems the leaders have leaked. There was actually another "leak" going around for a while, but it seems this time it's straight from the source, seeing as it was spotted during one of their videos. Specifically at around 2:47:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dH9MZkrXVQ
There's been several attempts to guess them, but there's a few that aren't quite clear. How do you feel? Are they good choices? Do they do their civilizations justice?
Here's the shot where you can see the leaders.
And here's one more pic, of the above zoomed in. Couldn't find a better pic atm.
I want Otto the great.
Barbarossa didn't amount to much, Friedrich was just a ruler of yet another German kingdom and Bismarck was never the regent of Germany.
Give us the man whonturned Germany into an empire and ended the Magyar scourage!
Was the Byzantine empire part of Europe?
>>1418095
Not really.
>>1418095
Yes. The Byzantine empire was quintessentially Greek and Greece is part of the European continent. Through out most of the empire Greece was a core part of the empire.
The European parts were.
He gave them all the tools. what went wrong?
What went wrong? Didn't the coup succeed?
>>1418009
Still ongoing.
Hope to god that it does, and that it's kemalists instead of Islamists.
If we view the bible in an academic light, and agree with the academic opinions that the bible was written by multiple sources and yet still contend that god is not JUST a literary fabrication to direct ideas and understandings about morality and other issues, how do we explain from this position the fact that the bible was written by multiple authors and used by them to make sense of different realities of human life?
Meaning how do we explain from the perspective of religion the fact that religious ideas and doctrines were used in this way(to struggle with the realities of human existence) and came about for these purposes?
So instead of saying that god is a certain way and contemporary research contends with the idea of god, how do we reinterpret god and divinity to take account of how they are used as political and social and moral tools?
Maybe we can say that the revelation of god comes or can come or can only come as an attempt of humans to organize and structure society and its operation and thus the actions of individuals within society.
That god is not revealed to us through dogmatic rereadings of older texts as religious texts, since such sharp distinctions did not exist back then. There werent many texts in general surely no sharp distinctions between history and myth and so on.
2/2
The historical relevance of god, even if according to a materialist world view god is a meaningless term, makes it so that even in materialist terms god might as well have been real since the historical belief in a real god caused people to act and do certain things.
We can say that god is something that is inherent to us and our attempts to understand reality as a result of its historic relevance and existence.
The idea of the attempts to understand or define god, much like a person might try to understand certain patterns of his behavior since he can remember himself is this redefinable godhood.
God not necessarily as an all powerful all controlling creator of the universe but as some characteristic that spreads across our understanding of ourselves and the world, a sheet that covers or pervades us. A stratum that is redefined and reunderstood through our attempts to understand it and its role in our lives. it exists in and at the place in which we put it through our questioning and attempts to understand It.
It is at the border, at the limit of our thoughts and research but at the same time it also potentially pervades everything. Godness, manifests itself when we question what is this historical reality of god and our attempts to understand it, and try to understand it from different perspectives. It is inherent to us, a part of us as individuals and as a society but is neither the cause of us nor our creation but is a changing part of us and our existence which changes as we explore it and redefine it.
>>1417829
God isn't exclusive to the Bible.
You have no idea who God is, do you?
So what class did Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels themselves belong to?
>>1417759
Both, solidly middle-class bourgeois. It's actually a big part of their identity and undeniably shaped their lives and attitudes. The 18th and 19th centuries were very interesting times for the middle-classes.
Bourgeoise
Upper-class obviously.
"Socialism is for the rich, free enterprise is for the poor" - Gore Vidal.
If Wahhabism/Salafism never received strong state support, would Islamism be as prevalent as it is today?
Which states have supported it except Taliban
>>1417743
Saudi Arabia and ISIS are the two largest ones at the moment.
>>1417757
Well yeah, Saudi Arabia is defenitely a huge problem
How did we start thinking of the bible as some sort of absolute truth? Was there something about a certain time that made people decide to start interpreting the bible as some sort of ultimate dogmatic truth? Surely the early israelities that wrote and read the old testement did not think of it as absolute truth. Was the idea of such truth arise later?
Was it a result of certain political realities? As in it was advantageous to present it this way to make it popular?
>>1417701
>Surely the early israelities that wrote and read the old testement did not think of it as absolute truth.
How do you came to that conclusion?
They thought of it as truthful enough to sacrifiece rams, their neighboors went even further to satisfie the protoganists of their own myths sometimes..
>>1417701
>How did we start thinking of the bible as some sort of absolute truth?
Uhm... because it says it itself?
Also, the doctrine of extra eclessiam nulla salus.
Here's a hint: [spoiler] political power [/spoiler]
