ITT: Minor historical figures that fascinate you
For me it's Tomas de Torquemada, Isabella and Ferdinand's grand inquisitor. He's not mentioned as much as other people in books about the Catholic Monarchs but everything I've read about him from his actions to writeups about his personality are memorable.
My favourite story about him was in 1492 Ferdinand was thinking of not expelling the Jews from Spain in exchange for some gold. Torquemada heard of this, stormed into the castle, ripped his cross off and threw it at Ferdinand. Then he told Ferdinand if he were to accept the bribe he would be betraying Jesus for money, as Judas did.
Saint Laurentius of Rome
>>1411720
I always had a passing fancy for the guy. He embodied everything terrible about the Inquisition (as if much good came of it), yet you never hear his name in the usual collection of historical bad guys, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
As far a minor historical figures, I'll go with Peter the Hermit. Somehow that faggot make the strange story of the first crusade even stranger.
For those who know nothing of General Gordon , he was a Victorian soldier, Empire Builder and Christian Hero who was employed mainly in suppressing the Taiping Rebellion in China and cutting up troublesome Fuzzy-Wuzzies in the Sudan.
"He had the kind of harsh blue eyes that suggested he might have you shot in the head at the first sign of human weakness. Though fierce in battle, he had a sentimental heart and loved none so well as he loved his sister.”
During his time as commander of the Ever-Victorious Army in China, Gordon attempted to find out who had written a mutinous note by threatening to shoot one in five of his officers, and to prove he wasn’t bluffing, actually had one of them shot.
Is this the best study bible?
No, the KJV is the best Bible for anything
The best bible for you is the one that comes to you
King James or don't bother.
Tell me about Ivan the Terrible
Was he the greatest leader of Russia?
>Was he the greatest leader of Russia?
Nah m8
He was pretty much a disaster, especially in terms of the succession. It wasn't long after his rule that Russia started getting repeatedly fucked by Poland.
no he was terrible
>Europeans were killing each other while Americans of all backgrounds(Anglo,German,swedish, Polish) were working together in America
Why was ethic diversity never a problem in the United States?
>>1403878
>Why was ethic diversity never a problem in the United States?
Are you kidding me?!
>>1403878
lol
alright bait
>Baiting this hard
-78/10
>see book by AC Grayling
>it's a collection of many short essays on different subjects
>pretty much every one is "dis famous philosopher thought that because he was Christian, the other thought that because he was an idealist"
>Grayling sets up the obvious questions in each topic that any layman could ask
>offers zero insight and zero examples of non trivial reasoning
This is just sad. You can spend decades in Oxbridge but you still can't gain one tiny bit of non trivial reasoning ability after all that time. Philosophy is just applied common sense plus shitloads of PR to promote your particular piece of nebulous unfalsifiable assertions in the infinite miasma of possible unfalsifiable assertions.
>inb4 the pseudo intellectuals claim otherwise
>>1413031
>Philosophy is just applied common sense plus shitloads of PR to promote your particular piece of nebulous unfalsifiable assertions in the infinite miasma of possible unfalsifiable assertions.
Also, you fail to realize that philosophy is the foundation of society. If it wasn't for Plato thinking about what society is and ought to be on a fundamental level, you wouldn't even be able to post on this Nigerian thumbtack enthusiasm board.
>>1413049
Haha. Without plato saying some obvious shit, society would have developed (as it did everywhere outside of Greece) anyway you dumbass.
>>1413031
>reading British philosophers
Well there's yer problem.
I know literally nothing about philosophy so go easy on me.
One of the issues I have when debating politics is when people start arguing as to why I shouldn't have the rights I would like. "Your free speech need to be restricted because X, or your right to move should be restricted because Y". Now, whether or not there are arguments that are 'correct' is besides the point for my own question below, but my issue is this: if someone can construct a nice-sounding argument that posits my freedom/rights should be restricted in an unnecessary manner, I will have been mislead. How is it possible to discern the "correct" arguments from the "incorrect" arguments? Why should I believe anyone who argues I should lose X freedoms/rights when they could be misleading me or trying to convince me for nefarious ends?
>>1412987
I will post an argument for you plain and simple: you do not have rights.
You have privileges. Rights cannot be taken. One can be stopped from talking. A reporter can be stopped from reporting. A weapon can be taken.
Your only true "right" by this definition are your thoughts. You may think whatever you wish.
>>1412987
As for the "correct" and "incorrect" when it comes to morality that is too subjective to provide an objective answer assuming you mean "correct" to refer to what is "right/good".
If you mean factually correct then you should only consider what can be objectively proven. E.g. "is it wrong to tell lies?"
No idea, but we can all agree lies are misleading.
>>1412987
You are asking about sophistry, the art of being believable or convincing.
Yes, is powerful. So you need to learn and educate yourself in logic and debating tactics, rhetoric and philosophy and politics to become less susceptible to these things.
An inherent characteristic of Christianity is divinely mandated patriarchy. Is atheism therefore a requirement of feminism? If not, how is a feminist a Christian by any traditionally religious standard? By believing in a male deity and believing Eve came from Adam and ascribing to religious teachings, a Christian woman would be subservient and a willing participant in ‘the patriarchy’. I think it’s obvious that most people aren’t actually Christians because any progressive thinker would be appalled by their own church’s teachings. In that vein, what are these new age Christians who cherry pick the bible and preach ‘love and accept everyone’ and ‘Jesus died for our sins’ while ignoring the more traditional teachings? Isn’t tradition a huge part of belonging to a religion in the first place? The more I think about religion, the more I realize that the doctrine that is being preached by these progressive churches aren’t really reflective of the teachings handed down through the generations and printed in their religious text. In 500 years will these Christians be something else entirely? Will they have an edited Bible that’s shorter and nixes the entire history and tradition of the religion?
>>1412688
Firstly, our culture operates on a serious misconception about gender. Masculine is not the opposite of feminine. If it was, men and women would be polar opposites but really, there is nothing at war between masculine and feminine. Even people who are liberal and support gender-fluid-ness talk about masculine and feminine being on a spectrum, which might be closer, but its not like there is blue on one side and pink on the other and everyone slides somewhere in between.
There are different traits that are considered masculine and feminine. This is cultural, of course, and Christian gender roles are based on Western gender roles. Christianity sprang out of Rome, which was a pretty sexist society, but at the time Christianity actually treated women better than most religions of the time. (People will say early Islam was great for women, and you’re right, but it came about 300 years after the fall of Rome.)
A lot of our American gender roles come specifically from Puritan Christianity, which is “new” in that it’s only 500-ish years old, instead of the 1700 years of Christianity.
But even though gender roles have changed in the church, and doctrine has changed (doctrine is ALWAYS changing to reflect cultural values and regional needs), the Bible itself actually has not. To say in 500 years the church will be teaching an abridged version of the Bible or a cut-and-past version is very unlikely. The Bible has been the same 65 books for the majority of the last 1700 years (if you use the Fall of Rome as the height of Christianity, or where it really began to dominate Europe). There are a few books that Catholic and Orthodox church choose as Biblical that the Protestant churches do not. Certain leaders of sects of Protestantism have challenged or wrestled with some books, but ultimately it has remained unchanged in structure.
>>1412691
There are also tons of religious texts that churches use that aren’t in the Bible. The Bible is only a collection of stories that the church uses as a foundation or a checkpoint for its teaching. There is so much more to read as far as religious texts go. The Bible is not an end-all-be-all for religious teaching and guidance in the church. If it was, we would not have theology texts or prayer books, and C.S. Lewis would not be quoted in church all the goddamn time (pun intended).
Tradition is a tricky question, and something I really wrestle with as a feminist and Christian. I love tradition. I love feeling like I’m part of something larger, but there are some traditions that I feel are sexist and I won’t participate in them. For example, women not being allowed to preach is a tradition (not a Biblical command) and I disagree with it.
People have been disagreeing with interpretations and traditions as long as the Church has been around. That’s what all of Paul’s letters are in the Bible–different churches saying, “hey, we’re teaching this,” and Paul saying, “WHOA hold on a second I’m not sure that’s what Jesus would want.” And people would listen to Paul because he was a very intelligent man and a scholar of the Jewish texts, so people trusted he knew what he was talking about.
>>1412693
But of course, he died, so then who do you ask? There’s St. Peter, but he died too. This is essentially how the Pope came to be. “We need someone to ask our questions to when we don’t know.” This is also why Catholic tradition says the Pope is infallible which has gotten the Catholic church into trouble (like when the Pope said the Sun goes around the Earth).
But we didn’t only get the Pope, in 325 we got the Nicene Creed, and around the same time we got the Apostle’s Creed. These are very short “summaries” of the faith. It’s almost like–at risk of sounding sacrilegious–a check list of what to believe. If you subscribe to these things of the faith (trinity God, Jesus died for your sins, Mary was a virgin, etc), then you count as a Christian! Hurray! What if you believe that marriage is a sacrament? That’s okay, it’s not in the creed either way. What if you believe marriage is not a sacrament? No worries, it’s not in the creed. It’s okay for us to disagree on these things. (Fun things that are not in any of the major creeds accepted by churches in history: gender roles and homosexuality!)
So, now that I’ve tackled the boring part of Biblical canon and historical tradition and probably lost anyone who was reading this, I’m going to talk about the fun part: God and gender.
What the fuck was his problem?
Don't perpetuate low-content memes.
>>1412547
Right Click
Hide Thread
He met a bigger and meaner asshole
Guys, intellectually I'm all spooked out. I can't stand philosophy because of all the unfalsifiable garbage. Many fields like economics etc are just applied common sense and stamp collecting. I see novels as nothing but entertainment despite pretentious people claiming life / philosophical insights and tonnes of people will consider you a disgusting plebeian if you don't initially read shitloads of boring as fuck canon novels.
I think I am painfully adapting to the idea of the Internet age / information overload by abandoning any pretension that I can be an all rounder or even dilettante in everything. There are ten trillion books called "Introduction to [broad and important field]", even if you only have one of each field.
History is similar to novels. Shitloads of reading along with a shitload pretension thrown on top telling you that you truly cannot no nuthin unless you have an in depth understanding of the Greeks / Romans / Christianity / USA / WW1 / WW2 / financial systems / or shitloads of other topics I can't stand it. And then there's current events. I don't care about climate change, outer space, inequality, China, the EU (as long as it doesn't stir up too much shit), applied psychology, the education system, diversity (as long as people aren't treated badly), Russia, South America, refugees, nutrition, mental health, and more. Admitting just one of these would make me an iredeemable idiot, no doubt.
Has anyone else had similar thoughts? The spooks are powerful and must be removed but their removal leaves your mind in a promordial state that is more susceptible to spooks than before.
I go to the city centre and see people shopping and the streets are busy but walking through then brings no epiphanies.
And obviously I have an existential crisis but /lit/ is fucking pathetic in demanding that anyone who has one should immediately "grow up" and become a monotheist and wagecuck. I fucking hate wagecucking. Seeing attractive young people is humiliating.
Become a polytheist then
Since you posted here you just want sympathy.
Take stock of what makes you happy and do it.
Probably drop online social interaction since you are building up a conception of a judgmental body that you are taking way too personally.
Go for a jog or something.
Not history or humanities.
You sound like a child with no life experience. You posted this thread to look smart and above it all but people who went through your current epin existentialist crisis phase at 16 can smell it on you like you shit your pants
>m-muh unfalsifiable garbage
Kill yourself
Germany replaced this
with this....
Dumb fascist.
Good.
How did the heart-and-brain dichotomy emerge?
Is it older than the Christian dichotomy of body-and-soul? Or is it just the folkish interpretation of Cartesian dualism?
Is this split a strictly Western phenomenon, possibly being derived from the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy?
![Egyptian_-_A_Complete_Set_of_Canopic_Jars_-_Walters_41171,_41172,_41173,_41174_-_Group[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/D6R0RkQ.jpg "Egyptian - A Complete Set of Canopic Jars - Walters 41171, 41172, 41173, 41174 - Group[1]")
I would say that having certain body parts represent facets of character is certainly older than Christianity and maybe stems from prehistoric conception of limbs, hair, teeth, eyes etc that could be lost without dying. This shows the "person" is somehow different from their body parts. Perhaps this is why after death, mankind believed that some part of them remained a a ghost or spirit or star that watched from above. Being able to rationalize the memory of the living person with the dead (soon to be buried) body somehow.
>>1412519
>Is it older than the Christian dichotomy of body-and-soul?
Well, considering that the brain wasn't even recognized to be an organ governing behavior until the middle ages, predating Christianity couldn't be possible. The Egyptians and other peoples of antiquity (like the Aztecs) reasonably believed the heart was the seat of the personality, as we think of the brain now, because it was the only organ which moved when separated from the body, and thus clearly imbued with the essential living qualities of the animated man.
Though, I'm skeptical that the specific "heart-and-brain" dichotomy is as prominent as you might think, since the Wizard of Oz is using them not literally but as irrational passion and rational order, so closer then to the usage of the dionysian and apollonian. You could, if examining the Wizard of Oz specifically, substantiate this with how the scarecrow is closer to a cthonic, organic character made of entirely biological parts (straw and fiber) with stake in the earth (literally), and the inverse of the Tin Man, who is an inorganic (made of tin) woodsman carrying an axe, opposed to nature.
If you REALLY want to be Academic you could stretch his occupation as a woodsman into the archetypal opposition to the irrational, organic world represented by the tree, a phallic symbol...
Holy shit it's a sunny summer day and I'm writing an obtuse essay about the fucking wizard of oz on a mongolian puppetry board, I need to go outside
>>1412558
Well to be fair, considerations like that are critical when constructing deliberate and effective alegorical fiction, so those are perfectly valid analysis, 2bqhwUf
So I was recommended to read Adam Tooze`s The Deluge about the First World War.
Basically, the case that author makes in it is that
-decline of Europe began then, not after 1945
>Christianity shot itself in the foot back then, has and never will recover from that war
>US began it`s ascension as the worlds only superpower then (the period of ascension ending in 1991 - since then being the worlds only superpower).
How correct is that?
>>1412357
>Christianity shot itself in the foot back then, has and never will recover from that war
KEEEEEEEEEEEEK
Christianity shot itself in the foot during the Wars of Religion. It kept shooting its own foot and made Europe disgusted of religion in general.
The fuck does Christianity or religion have to do in WWII? It was just a bunch of edgy Nationalists versus the victors of the last war.
>>1412363
>The fuck does Christianity or religion have to do in WWII
First World War.
The argument author makes that while weakened, Christianity was severely undermined in all domains (politics,arts,social life etc). because all churches in the continent supported it.
>Christianity shot itself in the foot back then, has and never will recover from that war
What Christianity has to do with WWI?
are there any more examples of necrocracy aside north korea, historically papal states and pooland?
THIS IS NOT SHOPPED! THEY EVEN FED HIM WITH PAPAL CREAMCAKES XDDD
Lenin worship in soviet russia
>>1412302
>THIS IS NOT SHOPPED! THEY EVEN FED HIM WITH PAPAL CREAMCAKES XDDD
Nice meme
>>1412354
don't be joking! I was seeing it on my own eyes!
it's really a necrocracy, with G-d Popar Janus Paulus Secundus
How do I worship Egyptian Gods, /his/?
they've migrated into the hindu pantheon
they're still worshipped in egyptian villages
Watch the latest X-Men movie
Isn't history just a spook? It's really impossible to know for certain these things happened unless you were there yourself.
>>1412081
thats not what a spook is
*farts on u*
really makes u think
>>1412081
far as you can tell the captcha is a spook. you should stop filling it.
