For two things Thing A and Thing B, does Thing A require time to "cause" something Thing B to happen? Does Thing A require space? Are time and space required for anything, be it Thing A or anything else, to undergo the act of "causing?"
I'm into war and the strategies that have been used in those wars. Should I just grab random history books or do you guys know any specific, good literature on this topic?
Please no Sun Tzu The Art of War.
If you're into World War 2 there are literally billions of books written by and about the german tank commanders. Almost all of them use primary (and thus obviously biased) sources.
Try Erich von Mansteins "Lost Victories". Although beware, he holds on to the now disputed theory that "had Hitler just left the generals to it, the germans would would have won".
Forgot this, sorry;
Furthermore the Byzantines wrote a number of military manuals on the subject. These are all situational of course and deal exclusively with how to fight the enemies of the Byzantines and nothing more. The most famous is the Strategikon by some dude named Maurice.
Machiavelli wrote a book called the Art of War which I haven't read. It supposedly deals with the specific situation in Italy during his lifetime.
>Zizek in his talk on state with varoufakis
>"We *sniff* maasht tayk eeeen de reffyoojeesh, and so on and so on, but they must be told that they tolerate gays, Jews, right of women, and so on and so on"
>people celebrate banning gay rights
I just received my dna test back from ancestry, is there a way I can use this to discover my ydna?
There are basically two schools of thought on this.
The first is the way its taught in schools, that it was all seeing and had complete surveillance of society.
The second way I've seen is that the Gestapo didn't actually have to do much, it was rather german society that in effect policed itself, with denunciations that provided most of the tips that they needed.
Personally I prefer the second explanation, as it goes well with how the many of the wiemar institutions were just rolled over into slightly changed forms (save a notable few like the SS).
The Gestapo had 30k employees and had to cover the whole of Germany + occupied territories. The Stasi had 90k employees (and even more snitches) and only had to cover a small part of that territory and even they didn't achieve full control. So yeah you can see what I am hinting at I guess.
Was literally the first gestapo flag I found on google images
fuck autocorrect then
Yes I know that we said that the nazis were the big bad and how everything was their fault, (not a nazi either, if that line makes me sound like it). I would appreciate an actual response though instead of citing a book.
Why is the US so 'weird' when it comes to coming out as an atheist?
It's literally a non-issue in the rest of the developed world, but in the US they seem to have a genuine prejudice against it, similar to homophobia. They have conventions, support group,s and what they refer to as 'civil-rights' actives pertaining Atheist rights.
Why is this?
I'm not an atheist btw, just curious about this.
What do you think of the 80s?
How come the best movies and music came from that period?
Are Babylon, Assyria, Carthage part of "western civilization"?
Are Russia and Poland? Were the Ottomans and Persia?
Where do we draw the "western" line, when did we start drawing it, what reasons do we have to draw it, and has the "western culture" won and taken over all of the world by now, leaving "eastern" values in the past?
I'd like to hear a historical or philosophical approach, and would like to avoid a /pol/ approach. Thank you.
It's impossible to have a full understanding of history. Most people only have a passing understanding of a few things related to their nation's history. Even expert historians usually just specialize in a certain area of history.
In this thread, describe an area or even in history that you barely know anything about to the best of your ability, and an "expert" /his/torian will elaborate on it with a reply.
>describe an area or even in history that you barely know anything about to the best of your ability
A positive view of the Confederacy persisted in the US (compare to, say, Nazis in Germany) because a lot of people don't mind racism and still relate to their cause to this day.
>a full understanding of history
The problem is there are always two sides to history, you'll never truly have a full understanding since people tend to fall to bias and sources are almost always biased
I know a good deal about the Middle Ages but fuck all about Antiquity
what did people who support hitler think was going to happen?
pic related realised how fucked he was eventually
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Who's your favorite historical figure that died a virgin?
Was there any way to save it?
Why is every "successful" (in the sense that they were capable of cultural and technological progress and military success) cultures monogamous/polyandrous/something similar to it?
Outside of the elite here and there, I don't think polygyny was that common either. It simply isn't efficient considering the more children you have, the thinner their inheritance will be.
Monogamy, and even polyandry, are considerably more balanced systems. You don't get competition between the spouses, and your progeny doesn't have to worry about getting something after your death (not as much, at least).
Why was teleology basically taken for granted in Hegel's philosophy?
I've only read books *about* Hegel, but it seems central to his system that the world is tending towards some goal, some end point, and that this end point makes sense of all the intermediary stages leading up to it. Was it merely an assumption on his part that the universe has an intrinsic endpoint that it develops towards? And was this assumption not questioned because, at that stage of natural science, it seemed incontestable that nature contains some beings (organisms) that can't be understood except from a teleological point of view? Is this assumption - and thus the Hegelian architecture built upon it - obsolete in the light of contemporary, especially evolutionary, science?
I don't know much about Hegel's ideas, but if he was suggesting >the universe has an intrinsic endpoint that it develops towards
Then I'd agree that the modern understanding of evolution refutes this point
The reason people only read books *about* Hegel instead of directly by him is that he writes so obscure that it's hard to grasp him if you read him in German and beyond your reach if you read him translated, to the degree where several Hegelian professors can have very different opinions on what he actual meant.
Still, from *my* understanding, it isn't about material objects but cultural progress reaching a point where ideas have been proposed, opposed, and created new ideas to the point where every possible idea have been discussed and history finally "understands...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
what the hell we the point of the hre again?