What's next for philosophy? Is meta-modernism a thing? Is there a paradigm shift coming? What is the ultra cutting-edge of new thought?
Post-memetic ethics is good one.
>>909621
Does it deal with the ethical implications of hoarding rare pepes?
Buuump
Aside from the shitty art, what does /his/ think of Existential Comics?
>>907723
Insufferable idiot
>>907723
heh...have a (you) OP...
Haha awesome
How much would it have delayed the allied/soviet victory in Europe if the Allied powers had not conducted strategic bombing campaigns against Axis countries during WWII?
Pic not related.
>>909596
The problem with a question like that is that the Allies, especially the British, devoted pretty significant resources both into the bombing campaign and in creating an air doctrine around said bombing campaign.
Asking what happens if those bombers just suddenly disappear or miss every single run is way different than it is if those resources are redirected somewhere else.
But if it's the former, which is what I think you're asking, surprisingly little. Allied strategic bombing was hampered by poor strategy; up until the very, very end, they were trying this Trenchardian nonsense of attempting to demoralize the enemy into surrender, which pretty much never works.
They didn't start scoring significant industrial damage until 1943, and even then, German production was still rising throughout the conflict. Honestly, the biggest impact was probably how many German resources, in the form of flak and fighters (especially night fighters) needed to be kept over Germany for Reich defense, and how much of an impact those planes could make if they were on the Eastern Front shooting down Russians: But on the other hand, you have a lot worse logistical constraints out there, it takes a lot more effort to field a wing of fighters over Kursk than it does over Berlin, and you can't just do a 1 to 1 shift of all those assets to the Ostfront.
My gut guess, is something like 4-8 months, no more. And if you go for the latter, "they tried something else", you probably get no loss of time, maybe even a gain.
>>909648
OP here, thanks for the honest approach.
I actually find the "they tried something else" question very interesting, because for me this is a question of ethics.
My personal feeling on strategic bombing is nuanced; I think I support the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki both; but I find it difficult to justify the bombing of German targets in the strategic air war. I'm trying to think about whether or not more or fewer humans on both sides would have died, and whether or not there would have been as lasting of a moral impact on warfare, had the bombing campaigns not been done and those resources and men been allocated elsewhere, for both sides.
It is unquestionable to me that the bombing campaign was not entirely unsuccessful, but I feel that its success was probably not proportional to the damage it wrought. What you say generally supports this position, so we have to play devil's advocate against our own position:
is it POSSIBLE that the Axis, if relieved of the need to defend its skies against all but the most tactically-focused attacks (knocking out military targets and precision strikes on industrial targets), could have inflicted such losses on the Allies and the Soviets that ground forces from these nations would have behaved much more brutally toward the defending nations, resulting in a bloodbath of equal size but different means?
Maybe this is a totally unanswerable question, but comparative history might be of some use, if anyone knows of a good analogous event.
Another question: if you were the Allies, what would you have done instead of strategic bombing?
>>909719
>My personal feeling on strategic bombing is nuanced; I think I support the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki both; but I find it difficult to justify the bombing of German targets in the strategic air war.
I'm not trying to be accusatory here, but what are you basing this on? Hell, the air war over Germany was way, way more dangerous; for a lot of the war, sorties over Germany took a 6% loss rate, and while that doesn't sound like much, remember that it was 25 missions to do a tour of duty, statistically, you were far more likely to die bombing Germany than come home to your family, and at least for me, that balance of risk reduces a lot of the moral quandries, this is a more or less even fight, not just bombing helpless people to induce a surrender.
>
is it POSSIBLE that the Axis, if relieved of the need to defend its skies against all but the most tactically-focused attacks (knocking out military targets and precision strikes on industrial targets), could have inflicted such losses on the Allies and the Soviets that ground forces from these nations would have behaved much more brutally toward the defending nations, resulting in a bloodbath of equal size but different means?
Personally, I doubt it. I mean, the Soviets were plenty brutal already, and I can't see more resources diverted to Ostfront making them more so. What is more likely is that the war would have dragged on longer and more people would have died over the fields of the Ukraine and the forests in northern Russia, instead of burning in German cities.
Although it has long since faded from public consciousness, the 1999 Kargil War has the dubious honor of being the first and as of now only major conventional war between two nuclear-armed states (excluding the on and off border fights between Russia and China, where fighting was minor and intermittent for the most part).
What are your thoughts on the this unique, yet largely forgotten conflict? Was the threat of an actual nuclear exchange overstated or understated? Could it be used to extrapolate how a theoretical war between NATO and the USSR would've turned out? What is the likelyhood of a future conflict between India and Pakistan over this mountain town?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B9URN8tjRA
>>907636
A nuclear threat? Yes. Both countries have very poor standings with one another, but being direct neighbors the threat of nuclear war would stay just that: a threat.
I would not say how a theoretical war between NATO and the USSR would have been, because that would entail a large amount of nations with far more developed militaries and economies engaging one another.
The likelyhood of a conflict over the town? I'd say moderately likely because those countries would fight over anything if it meant drawing blood from one another. How likely is a conflict between the two countries in general? Just likely again. It could happen but then again it probably won't. Pakistan has nothing on the sheer numbers that India could pump out were a conflict to occur.
These questions are much more fleshed out than the usual "redpill me on this, pham". Are these your own or from some kind of school/university assignment? (I don't really care either way, just curious)
>>907636
>That Moment when you realise that the Indian Controlled Poonch is literally right next to the Paki Capital
KEK
U
C
K
>>907670
Graduated from Uni almost two years ago. So I'm just here on my own.
I played an ArmA III mission (youtube video was footage of it) based on the Battle of Tiger Hill and started reading about it. I was wondering what fellow 4channers thought of it.
I always thought Kargil in some ways was closer to a nuclear war than the Cuban Missile Crisis was since in Kargil the two opposing sides actually stopped talking and started shooting, unlike Cuba where neither the Soviets or Americans actually fired on each other and at no point did communication between the two governments cease. Kargil was prevented from getting out of hand largely because of it's remoteness (the terrain made a blitzkrieg style breakout into open country by either side virtually impossible) and the fact that larger powers (mainly the United States) stepped in to put a stop to it.
Book recomendation!
Hey /his, does anyone have a good book (or link to a documentary) on the history and politics of the middle east/ other muslim countries and islamification.
I am pretty well read in islamic doctrine and ideology, but i lack historical/ political understanding, which is pretty bad in discussion whenever "they just did this because the americans did..."
Thanks in advance.
Someone suggest me a book on the History of Zoroastrianism and/or the life of Zoroaster/Zarathustra.
>>909335
thanks. I just finished "thus spoke zarathustra", but i have no idea about the actual historical person
>>909325
Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes is really good.
https://mega.nz/#!vZVGwAAb!hsYaMnp3FOFi5jvrxypxt9Ci6VN1Hg8J-Oqmn8mAWRo
Is it true that you can't prove a negative? Does it means that atheism is some sort of believe, and not rational or even just logical position to hold?!
>>909121
No, it's not true because positive and negatives are interchangeable (X = ~~X).
However it's irrelevant to arguments about god. Atheists understand the existence of god as something to be investigated scientifically, and science doesn't prove anything. Scientists can't "prove" that the moon exists, nor that unicorns don't exist. But our best theories, supported by the weight of evidence, let us reach very confident conclusions about both questions.
>>909121
Alright, taking the bait here.
First of all, you need proof and evidence to prove a positive claim. If you say you have a baseball, then you need to show me the baseball to prove that it exists.
Second, most atheists are empiricists, which means you don't believe anything until you have evidence for it.
Finally, atheism is not about disproving god. Its simply about not having any proof for god.
>>909121
>Does it means that atheism is some sort of believe, and not rational or even just logical position to hold?!
No OP, it means atheism is the correct default position and "God exists, prove me wrong!" is retarded.
Name some people who have been or came close to being a Übermensch/Superman in the last hundred years.
>>907354
Me.
>>907354
Stalin
Will there ever be another Napoleon or Hitler? The world is so boring and depressing now without the great wars of Europe. I think human beings need that kind of adventure in our lives, this "post-war era" is killing our spirit.
>>908816
there's plenty of wars and plenty of causes you can sign up for
you won't though, you'll just fantasize because you are just another autistic teen walt
>>908820
I think the entire point of those leaders is that they inspire people to do such
>>908816
Sign for Ucraine, Kurdistan, Raqqa, Afganistan, Sahel...
How many of the vandals were black after they settled in northern africa?
>>907086
At least 5
North Africa was white, blacks were south of the Sahara. Even today North Africa is mostly Arabic after the Muslims killed off the original populace.
>>907098
so would you say this is an inaccurate representation of the vandal sacking of romes?
Were the garamantians black or white?
From what I've seen and read, Oswald Mosley had pretty much the same charisma and style as Hitler, politically. Wikipedia says that the British Union of Fascists were anti-Semites, and this makes me wonder if like the Nazis, the BUF was a racialist party which would've had Nazi-like eugenics if in power. Can anyone well-read on this chime in? Genuinely curious. Also curious how the BUF would've felt towards separated Ireland, and Britain's colonies. Ireland had quite good relations with Nazi Germany, especially since they were neutral, but it's hard to predict what could've happened.
Thoughts?
>Nazi-like eugenics
What do you mean by this?
>>908583
State sterilizations, the forced removal and killings of innocent "undesirables," promoting a superiority of race, lebensborn program, etc
What did you think he meant?
>>908577
>Thoughts?
Beady
>we must imagine Sisyphus to be happy
Whoever said that shit never worked manual labour. If it was true Mexicans should be the happiest people on earth.
Because Mexicans doing labour do it trying to reach a goal that fulfills their lives, while Sisyphus is conscious of the meaningless of his life.
>>908335
How is being conscious of the meaningless of your life supposed to make you happy?
I dont think you understood the book, at all
Actually you didnt even read it, did you anon?
Not one of these proofs, based on the philosophy of Aristotle, will be able to convince a non-believer of the existence of God. This is precisely why the Patristic theology of the Eastern Church in the first millennium (and after it, Orthodox theology in the second millenium)) refrained from making attempts to prove God's existence with the help of rational arguments and logic problems. As St. Maximus the Confessor maintains, God's being is perceived by faith, and this faith is "more worthy than any piece of evidence", inasmuch as it is true knowledge "exceeding both thought and reason".
Some Orthodox authors of more recent times have used rational proofs of God's existence borrowed from Western scholasticism, in academia or for apologetic purposes, though such proofs were alien and unnecessary for the ancient theological intuition of the Eastern Church. Rejecting them or refraining from them, Orthodox tradition is based on the idea that rational acknowledgement of God's existence is not at all identical to faith in God, for faith is an experiential knowledge of God, and such an encounter is generally impossible by way of rational knowledge. Religious experience transcends reason, and its expression demands another means aside from utilizing philosophic discourse.
Some Orthodox authors of more recent times have used rational proofs of God's existence borrowed from Western scholasticism, in academia or for apologetic purposes, though such proofs were alien and unnecessary for the ancient theological intuition of the Eastern Church. Rejecting them or refraining from them, Orthodox tradition is based on the idea that rational acknowledgement of God's existence is not at all identical to faith in God, for faith is an experiential knowledge of God, and such an encounter is generally impossible by way of rational knowledge. Religious experience transcends reason, and its expression demands another means aside from utilizing philosophic discourse.
In Orthodox tradition the very understanding of " theology" is least of all linked to rational thought, and theology is not perceived as a science, as an abstract theorization. The theologians of the ancient Church were not men who sat behind a desk surrounded by books, dictionaries, reference books and academic textbooks. The overwhelming majority of Church Fathers were bishops or monks: they either actively studied Church functions or worked in a Monastery. Their theology was born from an inner mystical, enriching experience, coming into contact with the Church tradition through the liturgical services, prayer, the reading of Scripture, and relationships with the people of God. The classical formulation of Evagrius of Pontus (Fourth century), says: If you are a theologian, then you will pray sincerely, and if you pray sincerely, then you are a theologian". In this definition the border between theology and knowledge of God, between theology and prayerful experience, fades away completely: theology is not what is other, but like an experience of a mystical encounter with God in prayer, it is an experience of a relationship with God.
Concerning theology as an experiential encounter with the Living God, V. N. Lossky writes in his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Churches:
God is not a scientific subject, and theology differs from philosophical thought in radical forms: a theologian does not seek God as one researches any other subject, but God himself takes possession of the theologian, just as another's personality can seize control of us. This is exactly why God first found the theologian, exactly why God went out to meet him in his revelation, so that it would seem possible to seek God as we all search for our own existence, and consequently for our mind, for any kind of presence. The God of theology-this "you", is the Living God of the Bible. Of course, this is the Absolute, but a personal Absolute, whom we call " you" in prayer.
>>908117
>Latin church attempts to be intelligent about it
>Orthodox church on the other hand actually praises and endorses stupidity
oh ok lol
Is there any argument that can be made to show that the allies were the "bad guys" in WW2? I try to be as open minded as possible, but it just doesn't seem justifiable to defend the nazis.
No.
the nazis dindu nuffin
they were both bad
Post your weaponfus
Kriegsmesser masterrace reporting in
Here's a beauty
Or a pole axe.
Shieet
This one generally seems to be an extremely overlooked aspect of french and european history. What i also find intriguing are the obvious parallels between the war in the Vendée and the american civil war: In both cases you had a rural conservative farmer's population rising up against their liberal-leaning/enlightenment-type central government trying to impose its will and values on said rural population, as well as the aspect of the latter being dramatically outmanned and outgunned in every single aspect by their adversary, but yet fighting on out of idealistic motives. Even the scorched earth retributional tactics were pretty much the same in both of these domestic conflicts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZs1ihouDM
I don't really know enough about the specifics of the whole Vendée campaign in order to ascertain whether they actually had a realistic chance of thriumphing over the revolutionaries in Paris or not, but i find the thought experiment itself very interesting.
Would it be safe to say that, had they won the war in the Vendée, both liberalism/masonry and communism would have never been able to develop into fully-fledged political ideologies over the course of the 19th century?
I mean it's more than obvious that the french revolution itself was the "root cause" of these political doctrines so to speak. The soviets even still made flattering biopics about Napoleon and the french revolution even in the 1970's.
So what say you /his/? Did the Vendée rebels at any point have a realistic chance at some point of persisting against the central government, and how would history have played out if they actually did?
>>904972
>communism would have never been able to develop into fully-fledged political ideologies over the course of the 19th century?
That's a pretty big maybe. Disgruntled people like Marx would have arisen regardless, but the timeline might have been skewed. The effect in Russia, for example might well have been the same, due to the motivations of the revolutionaries.
>liberalism/masonry
Stop that silliness.
I'm just glad they were crushed as they were.
>In both cases you had a rural conservative farmer's population rising up against their liberal-leaning/enlightenment-type central government trying to impose its will and values on said rural population
I say this as a pretty big fan of the Jacobins;
There's a pretty big difference between rural peasants wanting to be left alone and wealthy slavers throwing a temper-tantrum about losing a democratic election fair and square, then proceeding to attack US government property, kickstart a massive war, and then whine for the next 150 years about MUH NORTHERN AGRESHUN and MUH STAETS RITES!
