Personally i think it's 50:50, Just because a black man is born into a ghetto family doesn't mean he has to become a gang member, if he's nurtured in the right way he can become something great.
I believe every human has a core personality which is genetic, but life events can seriously affect their world view and give mental problems, some people can again overcome those though, some can't.
It's probably something like 10-30/70-90 (nature, nurture). For the past ~50years the dominant idea has been this "tabula rasa" take on the subject that argues everything is 100% nurture but i disagree with it.
Genetic denialism is bad but genes aren't everything.
I think everyone agrees that genetics influence culture but many people ignire that culture also influences genetics.
Analytic philosophy has yet to come to a proper conception of what the self is.
This is unique to analytic philosophy. Continental philosophy, at least, is divided into competing schools of thought on the matter. Analytic philosophy is divided into its own, new schools of thought, arguing with each other while superficially analyzing discourses on the self from other schools of thought. While this leaves philosophy free to roam about in its own territory, its own framework prevents it from telling us anything meaningful about the self (or soul, or mind). Analytic philosophy is a paper tiger: its ethical doctrines are the most abstract and complex ever formulated, but they have nothing to do with the actions of the people who live in analytic countries.
Scholasticism was the Death's Head of the Latin cosmos; the Confucian Ru, similarly in the East, enshrined a code of ethics into the ethical lives of rulers. Analytic philosophy is still an abstract and indeterminate entity which will be overshadowed by a superior Anglophone ethic when the Eternal Anglo once again ejaculates into the temporal.
Self= awareness of your own body
>>946374
Care to elaborate?
Nice memes
Redpill me on the Spanish Civil War, I only have a cursory understanding of it.
1. Was it just a conflict about monarchy vs. republic, or was it deeper?
2. What were the different factions on the republican side, and was one faction dominant over the others? Were the nationalists divided as well?
3. Why did the nationalists ultimately win?
>Why did the nationalists ultimately win?
Because the reds were complete morons who had poor organization and in the end their little commie experiment collapsed on itself.
It's kind of funny that the leftists always preach MUH UNITY, yet they tend to atomize into ten gorillion different groups that always cannibalize each other.
>>942298
>3. Why did the nationalists ultimately win?
Because anarchists can't run a government and the Republicans couldn't raise support after the anarchists and communists gunned down priests and blew up churches.
/pol/ with dates everybody
Hello /his/
Let's discuss the islamic andalusia
How was it? i know that there has been a great output of culture and sciences during that era, was it because of exchange of expertise? tolerance?
How did muslims coexist with non-muslims? did people there convert because islam was looking peaceful for them as muslims nowadays say or was it to avoid paying jizya?
>>939433
You could compare it to the Italian Renaissance in that a lot of cultural and philosophical output was facilitated by local aristocratic competition between rival emirs who had more money than military forces. It could also have been a consequence of an influx of eastern talent at a time when the Abbasid Caliphate was crumbling while the Spanish Umayyads were beginning to rise. Tolerance (and triumphalism) was more a consequence rather than a cause as it lowered the barriers for entry into the Andalusian Nation of Letters, but did not really lead to much influence until the later translation period under the Catholic kings.
Co-existence was largely done through segregation but with lots of interaction between segregated communities through trade and commerce. Apparently in the very early years it was common for Muslims and Christians to be buried in the same graveyards.
I honestly can't think of any examples of someone converting to avoid paying a poll tax like the Jizya. That seems more a modern assumption, and I would imagine if it was a major impetus driving conversion than the Martyrs of Cordoba narrative would have alluded to such a thing. Instead, the allure of the Moorish cosmopolitan culture seems to have been the greater cause.
>>939577
I see, thanks for the reply.
Is it true that this all was achieved by the laxity of adherence to islamic law or at least relatively?
I heard that the peaceful era and golden age if you can call it that was ended when moorish muslims decided that there's too much heresy going on and must go back to strict islamic rule (i think the moravid dynasty)
>>939609
>Is it true that this all was achieved by the laxity of adherence to islamic law or at least relatively?
By what measure? If compared to the modern era, most of Islamic history shows a laxity in adherence to Islamic Law which functioned more like Justinian's Code did for Western Europe: a good idea if no other authorities had something to say about a legal dispute, which was almost always outside of small family court matters.
>I heard that the peaceful era and golden age if you can call it that was ended when moorish muslims decided that there's too much heresy going on and must go back to strict islamic rule (i think the moravid dynasty)
The Almoravids were less the Muslim Inquisition no one expected and more xenophobes who saw everything that wasn't part of their religious world view as indulgence. More early Al Qaeda than early Taliban (who more resembled the Almohads instead).
![holy_roman_empire___grunge_flag__1433___1806__by_undevicesimus-d65m2o3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5SrrPl7.jpg "holy roman empire grunge flag 1433 1806 by undevicesimus-d65m2o3[1]")
Is it fair to say that Rome lasted until August 6, 1806, when the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved?
Rome fell in 1453
>Thinking that Rome ever "fell".
Look around you.
>
>
>
ITT: battles where the bad guys won
>>939002
Fall of Constantinople
>>939004
t. Alexios
>>939002
>bad guys
>battle
Gtf back to Plebbit
I want to start learning history, where do I start? Is there a guide or wiki?
>>937333
Start on some page in wikipedia that interests you. Follow the links to build your understanding.
Eventually, you will have to read books and the like if you really want expand your knowledge and really understand an event or time. Wikipedia is okay to start but definitely has some real limitations.
Above else start with something you actually like, so you will stick with it.
>>937333
thehistoryofrome.typepad.com
>>937354
Thanks anon!
Remind me again as to why did English become the Lingua Franca of our time, /his/.
>>943337
because the English established the most relevant colonies
Because of Brits and Muricans dominating the post WW2 global economy
I'll start.
Well, he's probably the single best known figure of the Soviet-Afghan War.
It's just that nobody in America fucking reads books.
Pic related
Would you prefer comfort or freedom?
freedom with comfort
>>945400
The Brave New World society seems intellectually vapid and normie as fuck, I'd rather live on an island like John.
>>945400
Freedom & comfort. I plan to go full Arne Naess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf3cXTAqS2M
How come in Chinese culture, viziers were regarded as wise and honorable, whereas in European culture they were stereotyped as sneaky lehappymerchant.pngs? I mean, look at the how advisers are portrayed in Western works:
>Wormtongue
>Jafar
>that old lady in the Emperor's new Groove
Was this caused by Western advisers being less qualified or is it propaganda?
What source are you basing that off of, to say that Chinese advisers were revered? And during what specific time in history? Plenty of Chinese emperors have been very distrustful of their advisers, most of all the eunuchs.
>>945188
didn't Confucianism codify the respect to all public servants, as long as they fulfill their roles? almost every wuxia movie is about trying to bring down an officer without looking like they're rebelling against the Emperor
>>945188
I just got that impression from how Chinese people take test-taking very seriously, as a holdover from Imperial days when the bureaucrat exam was basically a way for non-nobles or non-powerful nobles to rise in social status. They thought being a bureaucrat was the most bitchin' thing you could be if you weren't born into power, whereas in the West people wanted to be priests/bishops to get power. I don't know that much about China but that's the impression I got from reading Fukuyama's book 'The origins of political power.'
Whoa whoa whoa hold on a moment, why do they call it the "Holy Roman Empire" when it's: 1. not Holy 2. not Roman, and 3. not an Empire?
BECAUSE IT WAS THE SPRITUAL SUCCESSOR TO THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND YES IT WAS ROMAN THE HRE LITERALLY HELD POWER OVER ROME FOR OVER 1000 YEARS AND YES IT WAS HOLY BECAUSE THEY WERE CHRISTIANS AND IT WAS A FUCKING EMPIRE IT WAS I JUST KNOW IT REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH STOP POSTING PICTURES OF THAT STUPID AND IANNOYING FRENCHIE IJRSGOTHYENJ
>>944926
calm down hans, it's ok, you like the german confederation, but you can't call it a
>holy
>roman
>empire
What are the metaphysical implications of internet memes?
Plato was right about everything
Would it be accurate to associate Pepe with the Dionysian and Wojak with the Apollonian?
What is your favourite rump state and why /his/?
For me it's the Domain of Soissons, a Roman kingdom centred on northern Gaul that survived even the fall of the final western Roman emperor in 476 until it was conquered by the Franks under Clovis. If it had managed to hold out it may have engendered a Roman reconquest of Britain (the Britons had fear of a cross-channel invasion) or maybe even restoring wider control, but alas.
>A rump state is the remnant of a once-larger state, left with a reduced territory in the wake of secession, annexation, irredentism, occupation, decolonization, or a successful coup d’état or revolution on part of its former territory
The Argentine Nazis
Mine would be the british empire
Soissons would never have done shit
According to special relativity, if two objects A and B are many lightyears apart, and A starts moving towards B, for object A, the "present" is object B's "future."
What implications does relativity have with regards to determinism? Does the future already "exist"?
>>944014
>Does the future already "exist"
Yes.
>>944026
'Kay. Is determinism true then?
>>944029
Yes.
