>Literally handed the greatest land army Greece had ever produced, and the Hellenic League
>Rich dad paid for Aristotle to teach him
>Generals that helped him (the Diadochi) were all individually great commanders
>Alexander the """"""""""""""""Great"""""""""""""""""""
If he didn't make history, then it would have been weird. But the guy was set up for success at every level.
Better military figures by far are the self made men. Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Napoleon. All that Alexander did was reap the fruits of his father's sow.
OP mad he will never ever accomplish anything or be written about in any history except maybe the newspaper for being arrested for possession of anime porn.
>>736048
>Julius Caesar
Here, let me ruin your fun. Julius Caesar was good at two things. The first is being a political mastermind, and the second is getting fucked in the ass by a Barbarian King. Every single one of Caesars conquests in Gaul was masterminded by Titus Labienus. And he was set from youth.
>>736048
>literally handed the greatest military asset in the world at the time, the stirruped mongolian horse archer
>individual generals all outstanding
>had skilled han engineers join him because of anti-jin sentiment
>Temujin the
"""""""""""Gengis"""""""""""" Khan
What went wrong?
>>731942
It didn't integrate with the Norddeutscher Bund to become Gross Deutschland
>>731942
it didn't go full Republican Federalist Constitutional Monarchy when Nationalism began rising.
By definitions are USA and Canada nation-states?
>>729206
USA is an empire
>>729206
No.
Yes. Why wouldn't they be?
Besides Czechoslovakia how many countries have separated peacefully and without any problem?
>>726214
Central America and New Spain.
>>726214
Luxemburg and the Netherlands
>>726220
wat
Plantinga's ontological argument for the existence of God says,
>It's logically consistent to say that it's possible for God to exist.
>If God can exist, he exists in some possible worlds.
>God is a great and necessary being, it is greater for him to exist in all possible worlds
>God exists in all possible worlds
>The actual world, the one we live in, is a possible world
Conclusion: God exists in the actual world.
My first criticism would be that, God's existence is not logically consistent.
But it's not logically consistent in the actual world so, Could God's existence be logically consistent in another possible world, therefore proving that God can exists in some but not all, possible worlds?
>>738320
>My first criticism would be that, God's existence is not logically consistent.
I think his point is that it's logically consistent to say it's possible for God to exist, and it is since you basically can't prove the opposite conclusion, with neither conclusion being provable, both mush be possible. Where he falls apart is
>God is a great and necessary being, it is greater for him to exist in all possible worlds
This is an unverified statement, he hasn't proven in any capacity that God is either 'great' or necessary', nor explained why this would mean he exists in all possible worlds/realities.
It's also logically consistent to say that it's possible for Antigod, the God who killed Yahweh right after he made the universe, took his place and put Satan in charge of the world to exist
Possibility doesn't really mean a whole lot in a world that can only be perceived through a fallible mind
>>738349
>logically consistent to say it's possible for God to exist
What if God is a logical contradiction? Is it possible to say he exists then? I believe all definitions used by believers are, but are there any that aren't contradictory?
>great or necessary
He says that if God is the greatest being, then he should be necessary as being necessary is greater than being contingent.
What truth is there in "White Man's Burden"?
In regards to both humanities and history
>>737580
Anti European non sense created by Jews.
>>737580
To me it's sort of true. Take a look on how's nowadays world and you can still see how most of the world is full of barbarism craving people. i.e. China, India, the middle east, Japan, ... the whole Asia. Cultured barbarians do not count as civilized people.
>>737580
"Truth" in what sense?
Are Stirner and Evola the final bosses of philosophy? I loathe spookposters as much as the next guy, I really do, and I'm definitely not saying everything is meaningless except for muh ego, but what I am saying is that it is absolutely undeniable that all that we really have in this life is our Being/Ego. And to put anything over it at your expense is retarded. Think the distinction between embodying God vs. the torturous, life-denying mortification of your Will.
Where do we go from here? Stirner stops at the Ego, Evola goes all the way to its transcendent origin. Is philosophy, at least its more practical branch, over? What else is there but a refinement of details?
Philosophers are hacks.
>>736162
Evola is pretty good and really cuts this metaphysical level or this sense of thought that has almost never existed in American society and is absent in Western thought today.
Also Spengler is pretty good as well.
>>736162
You can add Nietzche too since everything you mentioned from Evola is based off his work.
And what you described is the stepping stone into post-modernism. If the Ego is the ultimate reality than the logic conclusion is to start deconstructing all them spooks, figure out who's ego they are serving, and what makes them tick.
But the task of post-modernism despooking is already over. We are sort of waiting around for the next big thing. That's why the state of philosophy is utter shit because we are still waiting for the guys who succeed Baudrillard and Foucault. Everyone that actually knows what's going on is kind of stuck about where to go.
Than you have people like Harris who never bothered studying philosophy and just scribble on paper.
Has a civilization in history ever honored (as a tradition) the enemy soldiers they've slain? As in, performing rituals or ceremonies for the deceased.
If so, which one(s)?
>pic unrelated
>>735820
Wouldn't Aztec sacrifice sort of count?
>>735820
In recent history Turks did that for Anzac while fighting in Gallipoli Campaign. Which is one of the reasons why Turkey didn't have problems with Australia afterwards.
Nguni warriors in southern africa refused to mutilate the corpses of invading white men.
When asked why they said it was something only brave men can understand.
>Hitler didn't listen to his generals
>Hitler made bad decisions
Let's end this meme right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zinPbUZUHDE
No one wants to dispute this?
Okay, it's settled then.
>>731370
>no one wants to dispute an hour long video after 5 minutes
Fuck you dude.
>>731399
>Implying anyone is even going to watch the video.
If anyone on this board actually researched history, retarded misinformed memes wouldn't exist.
Byzantine empire evolved into Ottoman empire and became greater than ever, so why would anyone ever dislike the Ottoman empire?
Disregard """"genocide"""" when giving your answer.
memes
>>735174
Because most people in the West associate Byzantines with "us" whereas the Ottomans are "them".
Basically it's a christian/white identity defense mechanism.
>>735199
>Greeks
>White
I'm sorry if this sounds a bit /pol/, but I'm asking the question purely a legal one, not an ideological one: when banning gay marriage was made unconstitutional in the U.S., why wasn't it done by an Amendment to the Constitution instead of saying "The Constitution already says it!" Since slavery was banned through an Amendment, and women were given suffrage through an Amendment, wouldn't it be proper to follow the same procedure with gay marriage?
>>734881
>Read those verses
>Every claim in pic related is bullshit
>>734881
But it was banned through an amendment. Under the 14th amendment. There was no new amendment needed because the amendment ending the ban on gay marriage already existed.
The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights, and it's not terribly uncommon for "new" rights to be affirmed through the courts. Privacy, for one example.
Also the post-Civil War Amendments are somewhat of an anomaly, and were expressly pressed through as a big "fuck you" to the South while they couldn't do anything about it.
Well, /his/?
>>734223
>since we cannot presume that there is a God
I do that though. What now Calvin?
Create our own morals and values.
quit being an edgelord calvin
Why do Christians pretend they have the True™ exegesis of the Bible, when Truth™ in their terms is nonexistent?
Nobody actually knows what much of the ancient Hebrew is supposed to mean. The word we translate to "prophet", we actually don't understand the meaning of. If Christians seriously assert "prophet" is the True™ translation, then they're doing so on appeal to cultural momentum: we've always translated the word that way, therefore it MUST mean prophet.
Except it might not. You could use the word "intellectual" and the Old Testament would make just as much cultural sense.
Feuerbach is right. Christianity is best understood as anthropology. The entire Christian metaphysic is interpretation turned into Fact™.
It should not be a serious belief system anymore.
>inb4 tips fedora
Check it out
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rWAEY2fi7TU
>>733729
Holy shit, it STARTS with numerology.
>>733747
Yeah, what's your point?
This one's pretty interesting too
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NaXHvM0CR_0
>Socialist feminists reject radical feminism’s main claim that patriarchy is the only or primary source of oppression of women.
Rather, socialist feminists assert that women are unable to be free due to their financial dependence on males in society. Women are subjects to the male rulers in capitalism due to an uneven balance in wealth. They see economic dependence as the driving force of women’s subjugation to men.
>Socialist feminism draws upon many concepts found in Marxism; such as a historical materialist point of view, which means that they relate their ideas to the material and historical conditions of people’s lives. Socialist feminists thus consider how the sexism and gendered division of labor of each historical era is determined by the economic system of the time. Those conditions are largely expressed through capitalist and patriarchal relations. Socialist feminists, thus reject the Marxist notion that class and class struggle are the only defining aspects of history and economic development. Marx asserted that when class oppression was overcome, gender oppression would vanish as well. According to socialist feminists, this view of gender oppression as a sub-class of class oppression is naive and much of the work of socialist feminists has gone towards specifying how gender and class work together to create distinct forms of oppression and privilege for women and men of each class. For example, they observe that women’s class status is generally derivative of her husband’s class or occupational status,.e.g., a secretary that marries her boss assumes his class status.
I'm personally interested in the idea that sexist and racial oppression can manifest itself in other forms not related too production, the view that sexist and racist discrimination is can form within the superstructure itself that is mentioned here.
I assume this is born from Gramsci and other marxist thinkers that focused on how Superstructure functions and reproduces itself?
This is absurd armchair speculation designed by an educated but not particularly intelligent or talented individual.
>>732588
Just like most feminism and socialism
I guess the antithesis failed to adquately overcome the thesis
>>732581
All feminism is garbage, especially even worse more leftist garbage.
There is no morality and no reason to even attempt to seek equality. Feminists should be put to death.
What is so "wrong" about Sharia Law?
What is so "wrong" about predestination?
Its ethics simply do not live up to the standard of contemporary western ethics.
It's okay at a societal level. It's suicide at a state level.
