>"It's been a long time, I could use a little help here."
What to do /his/?
kick him in the balls
>>859556
To be fair, I dont know how to sculpt.
>>859556
Shrug.
Have the citizens of North Korea agreed to the social contract, and thus they can't be called oppressed?
The social contract is just a meme, most people don't actually have the freedom to shop around citizenship.
>>859522
So governments have no way to justify themselves?
>>859530
Use of force.
Why are there no commonly accepted philosophy textbooks?
When someone wants to learn about evolution, he won't read Darwin's original works, but instead a modern biology textbook which explains the current knowledge in a comprehensible and condensed form, including newer evidence, newer modifications of the theory and excluding the mistakes of the original seminal publications. Similarly, no physics student is obliged to read Newton's "Principia Mathematica" and no math student has to read Cauchy's original texts, because there are modern physics and math textbooks.
So why is it that with regard to philosophy I am always being recommended to read the original texts? It seems to me, that philosophy as it is taught today, is still more about worshipping historical people than about actually discussing their theories. Or else surely someone would have made the effort to extract the actual theories and arguments and publish them in condensed form and in modern non-antiquated language?
Am I just being ignorant? Please help, /his/.
>>859386
We used Sophie´s World in my school
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_World
And apparently it works as text books in other countries too.
When I have to took some classes at the uni we have to read The Passion of the Western Mind.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Western_Mind
>>859439
Sophie's world was so fucking boring jesus christ.
>>859386
>So why is it that with regard to philosophy I am always being recommended to read the original texts? It seems to me, that philosophy as it is taught today, is still more about worshipping historical people than about actually discussing their theories
There are a lot of papers that comment on the philosophical books. But this stuff is not entry level, it assumes you already intimidatingly familiar with the core text books.
You don't get to jump straight into reading papers on theoretical quantum physics after learning highschool basics.
Hegel's Introduction to phenomology also is a good explanation for this. Philosophy needs to be digested as a whole concept, you can't study an individual part of it independent from the rest without butchering it. This means that yes, you need to be have read dozens of different books front to cover in order to get into the deeper stuff.
I don't believe Christianity really answers the question of 'why are we here?', and if anything, raises more questions than it answers.
If God is a perfect being, why did It create the universe and men? Supposedly being an eternal being, It would have had as much time before him as behind him (i.e., there was eternity behind God, and as much time as will continue to exist had already passed when God decided to create), meaning something prompted this entity at a specific point that made him decide to act/create. However, a perfect being cannot 'arrive' at a decision, since being perfect/omniscient, he is the nexus and cannot 'make up his mind' or 'reach' a conclusion. A perfect/omniscient being must have already arrived at all conclusions.
As to the creation: why? Why did this supposedly perfect omnipotent/omniscient being decide to create? Being perfect and omniscient, is not its knowledge and the projections of what it COULD have created in its mind of the same quality as the created thing? Or perhaps, this God entity never actually 'created' anything, and the existence we know is the thought-projection of a would-be existence in its mind as It rests in the void?
I know someone once said It created 'out of love' and for 'our benefit': but consider that the majority of humans who have existed have not been Christians (i.e. will not be saved), and even amongst those who nominally are, many will not be 'saved', considering either laxness or their deviation from the religion, all meaning that in actuality, the act of creation will have resulted in a net negative impact on the majority of humans, negating the 'He created us for love/for our benefit' argument.
But if one does not believe God is perfect/omnisicent, then one goes against all established Christian dogma (despite the historical YHWH of the Israelites being a deity in the style of the deities of his day - powerful, but not omnipotent; righteous (by the standards of the day), but not perfect).
>>859357
your thread is shit
>>859377
Have you got any refutations of any of the points mentioned? Aside from 'fedora' or some other insult based on the fact that you find your very specific sense of aesthetics belittled or insulted.
>>859357
The corner stone of Christianity is "spread the good news"
That's why we are here. As for the rest of it are you implying that God should have made us better?
1. think up of an historical event
2. draw it in paint, gimp etc
3. others guess
>>859432
Quatre_Bras
Why are anglos regarded as "the good colonisers" and the spanish and portuguese as "the evil blood-thirsty, religious fanatic colonisers"?
Is it holywood propaganda at it's best?
>>858914
Yes.
Next question.
>>858914
Black legend
Yellow journalism
>>858914
>Is it holywood propaganda at it's best?
Nope. It's mostly true.
We know that in general terms, emotions really are just a bunch of chemical reactions going off in the brain but what is it that excludes the lower animals from displaying emotions? Occasionally I can tell that my dog is disgruntled or unsatisfied when I have to yell at him for some particular reason no where near the degree that any human could display it.
Is intellect a tool to suppress emotional outbursts or one that amplifies them?
Im no expert, biut i imagine that more complicated brains have a more complicated range of emotions.
>>858235
> Emotions really are just a bunch of chemical reactions
Well they're a little more then that, you have outside stimuli causing it.
Saying it's just chemicals in your brain is like saying that the picture you posted is just some chemicals in your brain.
>>858260
But the causation of stimuli is the release of said chemicals. I'm trying not to tip my fedora to hard but let's not try and derail the thread.
Was the Civil Rights Act a good idea?
>>857666
>Edgelord
Considering the alternative was losing the Cold War, yeah it was.
Or would you rather have your mother as a mail order bride in Moscow?
>>857666
Long overdue but a good thing.
Describes a lot of things in America desu.
>>857666
Uh, I can't have an objective view since I'm melanin enhanced individual
But I think it in the long run it was good
The world cocked an eyebrow at how nazi-lite americans were
is Genghis Khan's empire another example of a successful implementation of multiculturalism?
>>857506
>multiculturalism = mass genocide
Well colour me surprised
You're not welcome here, John
>>857506
No, because they treated all cultures as equally beneath their own
What are some ESSENTIAL languages to learn to read Classic Philosopical texts in their original language?
>>857147
All you need is the Rosetta Stone.
>>857147
Latin, French and German.
>>857147
>>857197
Basically, I think this is right: Latin, French, and German (and maybe Greek)
It depends on the era of philosophy you're interested in. The Greeks were kings of philosophy for a while, that's for sure; but the Greek is hard as shit to learn, especially because you'd need to learn Ancient Greek. People spend a boat load of time just learning it, nevermind the difficulty of applying that learning to interpreting and translating texts.
As for Latin, that'll help with huge swathes of the history of philosophy in the Roman world and well beyond--medieval European philosophy, and a good deal of modern philosophy too.
French is super helpful for modern philosophy too, well into the Enlightenment--and, of course, a good deal of 20th century philosophy. If you're into thinkers like Rousseau, and the other social and political philosophers of that time, then French is a good way to go. As well as Sartre, Camus (arguably not a philosopher), Merleau-Ponty in the 20th century, and even guys like Derrida and Foucault (if that's your cup of tea).
German is essential if you're into Kant (who's hard as fuck to read in any language) and post-Kantian philosophy (Hegel, Nietzsche); aesthetics and ethics before and after Kant (18th century through the 20th); and the host of philosophers in the 20th century like the Frankfurt School, Heidegger, etc.
Found out about deism lately, and I really dig it. I'm a man that isn't huge on faith, and is more of a fan of the scientific theory, ie shit you can basically prove. One can't say with any certainty that there is or is not a god. It is logical to think that some being had to put the cosmos together, like the big bang for example was caused by a higher being along with everything from physics to evolution. Enlightenment philosophers and Einstein were onto something.
>>856854
>It is logical to think that some being had to put the cosmos together
no it isnt
>>856854
>It is logical to think that some being had to put the cosmos together,
Yeah if you accept babby-tier Aristotelian teleology.
>>858454
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAwxe0j41BY
What does /his/ think about this famous article by Jared Diamond?
http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
>le hunter gatherer maymay
If they're so smart, how come they're dead? Oh yeah, that's right, they got rekt by farmer armies.
>>856553
>yfw
also, wouldn't we need to kill a good proportion of humanity to return to le hunter maymay?
>implying any sane person would want us to be Earthbound and go extinct when the sun decides to enter its red giant phase
Napoleon wins Waterloo
Whats the world like in 2016?
>>855547
Napoops will just be defeated in the next battle.
>>855547
Pretty much the same, except the history books of the napoleonic wars give a bit longer than the 'hundred days" as they have to record the huge buildups of Napoleon's neighbors after which they crush him at whatever battle it turns out to be.
After Leipzig, it just wasn't the same.
>>855554
fine, you pedantic fuck
Napoleon never goes into Russia
Whats the world like in 2016?
Do the existential thoughts and the fear of ceasing to exist ever go away?
When I was like 17 I used to think that I'd stop stressing about it over time, 10 years later and I still have those same thoughts. No philosophy, books or real life activities ever helped me.
I wouldn't know about yours, but existential crises can end.
>>853631
After diagnosed with a very serious disease that made my life literal hell and anguish for years when I was 23, coupled with painkiller addiction.I started to long for death.
I don't know did opiates cause this, but after one accidental overdose, eternal sleep sounds a very comforting thought to me.
Marcus Aurelius meditations have been only comforting book to me and his stoic philosophy itself he expounds in that book. It is a rather curious fact that he wrote it almost on his death-bed and probably under Opium according to some sources.
Dealing with pain is always worse than death and has made me appreciate the condition where there is only bliss for the body and mind (chemically or otherwise achieved), but I don't consider myself hedonist.
Get a hobby and a girlfriend
Even then, you'll probably still think aboht it from time to time. Not much can be done. Enjoy the time you jave in this life is all I can say.
>oldest intact civilization on the planet
>will be kicking and staying relevant long after other current powers have faded into distant memory
What's the secret to their success?
Intact? Last i checked the countryside is a toxic dump.
Overpopulation
Well, you remembered to not claim oldest culture this time.
