Knights were completly useless
>defeated by mongols
>crusades were failures
>poorly trained
name 5 noteworthy knights
exactly
there is a reason why when people talk about historical badasses they mention Spartans, Samurai, Vikings but never knights they were just embarassingly bad I'm surprised they were even a thing
Just rich English/French fops with too much money, pillaging their own countrymen for the "honor" of someone else's wife.
Fuck nobility.
Knights mostly were useful after routs, pursuing enemies that were trying to escape.
>>642250
>honor
Honour, thou knave
Which buildings or monuments are almost overwhelming for you?
Myself, most recently it was the Hagia Sophia. Nearly 1,500 years old. And there are earlier Byzantine & Egyptian pieces nearby. Emperors walked through the same grand doors as tourists today.
>>640948
Turkish architecture at its finest desu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2IHjUr7KiQ
So far, nothing has overwhelmed me which I havn't visited in person.
But the Roman Pantheon got pretty damn close.
>>640948
Those kebab sticks are making me tear up.
In this thread it was established that there must be a predicate for scientific nothing (referred to as void in the Bible): >>632478
It was established that philosophical nothing (absolute vacuum) as a predicate would be incoherent, so it must be another predicate.
So what we're talking about is a predicate to reality. What can we say about this predicate? First of all, we know it did not just "give birth" to reality, but actively sustains it
>>635489
Secondly, we know it is a power beyond anything we can comprehend.
Thirdly, we know it isn't subject to time or space, and isn't material (not even the stuff, the energy, that comprises void). So it is completely abstract. Now, what are some wholly abstract things? Well, there are numbers. There are actually a lot of things besides that. But running through everything, the only abstract which could accomplish something on its own would have to be a form of Geist. Therefore we are talking about an agency. There is another indication of this: if the predicate did not have agency, then reality would always have existed, and therefore we would be in heat death already, because if there were no agency then reality would be be to the predicate as frozen water is upon a freezing temperature; if that temperature always was, then the water would always have been frozen. But instead we are talking about something with the capacity to endow reality, but which did not always endow reality, which is indicative of agency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wm4RlnnaOU
Orthodox FAQ for Catholics, Protestants, atheists, Muslims, Jews and liberals, plus reading list: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
>>637821
I never seen this icon before.
Saved.
>>637821
Isn't it forbidden to make yourself a eunuch? Why have you turned into a trap then, Constantine?
I find it incredible I know it's a Constantine thread before even opening it.
Is it true that many 4channers have taken up religion, Orthodox and Catholic Christianity particularly, from original positions of non-belief, not from agenuine belief but for reasons of a stronger moral code, taking a position against Islam and/or degeneracy, pure aesthetics, etc; or is this just a dank meme used to discredit the many tippers for Christ on 4chan these days?
Some of us were always religious, we just talk about it more now because others seem to want to know.
>>634879
I went through my tipper phase in high school and now I've come back.
>>634879
It's true in my case too. I mean, I'm not a Christian (yet?), but I'm reading a lot about Christianity and theology in general and I changed drastically from a naturalist/materialist view of life to a non-naturalist/non-materialist.
All the atheists' arguments I see here where my arguments at some point in life, I was a fervorous tipper.
Post some Alt-History stuff. I like the idea of a modernized Roman Army.
>>620538
I like the idea that pic related was in charge of North Africa instead of Rommel. Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war, but I do think that the Axis would have lasted longer.
A few weeks ago I made a thread asking people whether they considered liberty or equality to be more important. The response was overwhelmingly in favour of liberty. How can this be, considering that this board has so many socialists?
>>618346
This board doesn't have that many socialists, and part of socialism is (from their perspective) aiming for liberty.
As far as socialists are concerned private property is simply another form of bondage through the need to sell your labour to survive, so were the means of production to be controlled by the workers this class bondage wouldn't exist and they would be more free.
Socialists see socialism as very conducive to freedom, moreso than capitalism.
>>618353
But aren't they still in favor of a planned economy? How could that be free?
History has already picked the winner. Capitalism and Socialism in one country (progressives) beat Fascism and National Socialism (reactionary). Later on, International Capitalism won the race with the Soviet Union. Whether or not, Capitalism undoes itself or not later on, we do not know, but we do have a winner right now.
>>625403
Technically, it was Communism, not Socialism and the Soviets did most of the grunt work as 70% of the German casualties were on the Eastern front.
And technically, National Socialism wasn't defeated economically as their loss was a purely militarily one and scientific one.
Had the Americans not invented the atom bomb, the Soviets could have beat them militarily too.
That said, Capitalism beat Communism (not Socialism) on the economic front as the Soviets never engaged the US directly in full scale war.
National Socialism economically could have possibly beat Capitalism, but we'll never know except for the fact Chinese sort of practice. They are going through some economic troubles now, but if they pull through and still become dominant, we will have to say that National Socialism would have beat Capitalism economically.
Communism has never been tried.
>>625575
>Communism, not Socialism
If you want to get 'technical' that's wrong.
Also National Socialism was primarily defeated economically.
>Are there objective truths?
Yes.
>Is everything we imagine, feel, and experience (religion, mystical experiences, fear of death etc) just the brain being the brain and nothing more?
Yes.
>Is evolution responsible for our consciousness and thus our ability to look intrinsically and fear death and wonder about the beyond?
Yes, for it is the brain only being the brain.
>Will death be simply a candle being put out and nothing more, all fictions of an afterlife simply the brain not knowing how to handle its own non-existence?
Yes.
Oh my goodness you have solved all the problems of philosophy good job duuuuuude I am blown awayyyyyy
AMAZING
M
A
Z
I
N
G
>evolution explains consciousness
lol worst meme on this board to be honest
>cold weather explains snow lmao
>>623997
>cold weather doesn't explain snow
What?
What does /his/ think about this book? I read it and it was k.
a fag who sells his shittier researched books, seperating alt-right wingers from their shekels.
>>621267
>taking advice on how to be a man from a guy who sucks dicks
shiggy
It's a bit faggy. The equivalent of I am woman hear me roar shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cqTE_bPh7M
I mean, that it's all bullshit?
>Chomsky discussing literally anything other than linguistics
>being on point or insightful
"No"
>French
>Intellectual Culture
"No"
And I'm not going to listen to that old man groan on like he's fucking on his death bed.
>>616966
why do you feel this way, anon.
>Chomsky
>Post-Modernism
into the trash it goes
Why was America military defeated in Vietnam?
Vietnam is so small and poor it's amazing to think rich and industrially strong USA could not win on the ground.
What could USA have done differently to win the war?
>>613969
Anon the military of the US literally raped the North Vietnam Army and Viet Cong. The US lost because Vietnam fell to communism after the Treaty that was signed and US troops pulled out.
The military won.
The politicians lost.
>>613969
Because impossible always win
The US military was tactically superior to anything the NVA/VC could throw at them. However, the government didn't have any long term strategic goals aside from KILL MORE GOOKS. They couldn't invade North Vietnam for fear of escalating the conflict, and they couldn't invade neighboring nations to knock out the Ho Chi Minh Trail - oh wait we did lel.
But thinking that because the US military won tactical engagements means they "won" the general conflict is stupid. Basing your level of victory on body count is a stupid idea. We lost more men than the Germans did in WWII and still won, who gives a fuck? The NVA/VC had far more staying power and that's why they won. They had a single objective that in theory was simple to achieve: fight until the Americans get tired of fighting, no matter the cost.
How was guerilla warfare countered? What's even the point of having bigger army if a bunch of shit eating civilians using hit and run tactics can rekt it?
>>608928
Anon what are you talking about civilians using guerilla warfare can't wreck a well trained and proper military in battle.
Guerilla fighters do a war of attrition against proper militaries, and harass them. The key for a proper military to exterminating them for good is not to give a fuck about how they conduct the war, and kill them all.
The only way a guerrilla army can win is with the aid of a foreign power.
>>608928
This is 'politically incorrect' but if guerillas are embedded within civilians, the best headway is by killing civilians.
At the dawn of the post-ancient epoch, between antiquity and modernity, truth was synonymous with Christ's Body, the Old Testament was a shadow of the truth (Collosians 2:17), the Gospels were an icon of the truth. One's attitude toward the truth would be reflected in one's attitude toward Christ and Scripture. Then the Reformation came, the and the old dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees was revived; the Pharisees held that the Scripture was part of Sacred Tradition, and not the entirety of it (for instance, the Resurrection of the Dead was Sacred Tradition not covered by Scripture), and that Scripture itself doesn't just need to be transmitted, but also the precise *meaning* of Scripture. Sadducees, by contrast, said there was not Sacred Tradition, but Scripture alone was what mattered, and its meaning is its face value (for instance, the Sadducees held that "an eye for an eye" meant the offender had to be blinded in one eye, whereas the Pharisees said it meant the offender had to pay the financial equivalent). Christ affirmed the Pharisee position as the one passed down by Moses (Matthew 23:2). This scenario was repeated all over again during the Reformation, but a new element was introduced here: *personal* interpretation, which was strictly prohibited by the Bible (2 Peter 1:20--the word used for "personal" or "private" or "own" is ἰδίας, the genitive case of ἴδιος (idios), source of the word "idiot"). The advent of sola scriptura lead to the roots of scientism on one hand (truth is not expressed philosophically or poetically or artistically, but only through legalisms--a contradiction of 2 Corinthians 3:6), and existentialism nihilism (meaning is strictly personal, not inherent in the truth).
cont
>>624522
With modernity, truth ceased to be considered synomous with Christ, but it held the legacy of Renaissance humanism: God is a creator of natural world, and it therefore should be studying as the truth as much as the Bible. So instead the natural world itself was seen as the truth, and the Reformation legacy endured, creating eventually both scientism and existentialism nihilism. Now existential nihilism is very different from Christian existentialism--a good example of the latter is Notes from Underground, here meaning is not something that exists solely by one's creation, but is a constant truth, but one which have the free will to not make peace with. Existentialism nihilism, on the other hand, applied the Reformation attitude toward the Bible toward the secular truth: there is no innate meaning, meaning is just a matter of individual conception. But what does this really lead to? Christianity sees God as the ultimate value, from which all others spring, like colors from a prism. But existentialism nihilism sees no objective vale and meaning which others are refracted from, all meanings are just independent and equally truth; so the truth that they all share in is what happens when all colors are mixed together: darkness. There is no meaning, there is purpose, there is no point, there is only chaos (from Greek for "abyss"). Total relativism means each truth is true so far as it partakes of the ultimate truth, which is, paradoxically, nothing.
Orthodox reading list and FAQ for atheists, Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Muslims: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
Good thing humanity moved past this whole Pope business.
>>625104
What does the pope have to do with this?
Why is the American military so infatuated with the Germans of WW2?
What wasn't already in their manuals, they got it from the Germans'.
>>623386
Who wouldn't be?
>>623386
Best selling book to American servicemen overseas is about Nazis escaping to fight in Vietnam,
So were the badass part of vikings come into play? I mean raiding villages is not exclusive to them and farmers are hardly worthy enemies. Is it about blood feuds? This is what makes them badass? I'm pretty confused. They seem to just be bandits then again highwaymen were romanticized as well because they were ''brave men who fought for what they want'' so I'm guessing that's what it is about? Not a viking hater I just try to understand shilling I encountered.
>>621827
Not a whole lot of raider/trader cultures can boast this.
>Inb4 assmad proofs Russian
Varangians were a thing. You still have slavic heritage. If you live in north/western Russia, upper Ukraine, or Belarus, you've probably also got Swedish heritage. Get over it.
>>621827
I actually think that their badassery comes from their desire to die in battle so the valkyrs could take them to Valhalla, this means that they had no fear to die.
Also its important to point out that the Varengian Guard was made of vikings due the conspiracy of Byzantinian noblemen who wanted the throne, so recruiting mercenaries and make an oath (which they took seriously) was even better than having a native guard.
They're fucking vikings. Vikings are AWESOME.
![Giotto_di_Bondone_086[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6HxlmSV.jpg "Giotto di Bondone 086[1]")
