Let's have a Three Kingdoms thread where we separate fact from fiction.
Topic for discussion: Benevolence, not even once.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms ruined the 3K era, since every other Asian wants to believe what the Romance said was true to history.
At the same time, though, without Romance the 3K era would probably not be nearly as popular, and we would have plenty of people thinking only of the Han dynasty much like Japan cherishes Edo.
Anyhow, though benevolence Shu is pure propaganda, historical Liu Bei is a lot more interesting than his novel counterpart. The biggest problem with novel Shu is that pretty much every other character is there to aggrandise Zhuge Liang.
Not actually contributing to the discussion but pic related is Liu Buei's burial mound in Chengdu, China. I was visiting the city in August and heard about this great garden that I should visit. Come to find out it is the memorial temple for the Three Kingdoms and has Liu Bei's tomb.
Was a neat find
Does this falsify that there are infinite numbers between two rational ones? Or is movement a mere illusion
Zeno's paradoxes are reducto ad absurdums designed to support Parmenides' ontological monism and ridicule the Ionian notion of a pluralistic world. He wasn't trying to falsify the notion of an infinitude of numbers between two numbers, I don't know where you got that from.
Thoughts on the Federalist Party (1789-1824)?
Notable members include:
-Alexander Hamilton, 1st Treasurer of the US
-John Jay, Chief Justice and signer of the Treaty of Paris
-John Marshall, longest-serving Chief Justice of the SCOTUS
-John Adams, 2nd President of the US
Post related articles, essays, opinions, etc. that is related to the Federalists or "Era of the First Parties" in US History below.
Pic very related
Needed in order to distinguish the constitution from the AoCs, but sowed the seeds for the looming federal govt that was cemented after the civil war.
Also they were scared of the french so theres that
>"Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Great Britain as expressed in the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794. Hamilton developed the concept of implied powers and successfully argued the adoption of that interpretation of the United States Constitution. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank and implied powers, and vehemently attacked the Jay Treaty as a sell-out of republican values to the British monarchy."
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
why is nanking denialism so widely accepted in japan? germany owned up to their shit. why not japan?
Because no one gives a shit about the chinese.
Really my korean friend, trying to discuss this here is pointless, no one cares to attack the nips because of
>caring about chinks
But the weeaboos will certainly defend japan.
What was his deal?
[spoiler]how big was his penis?[/spoiler]
His deal was simply that he was an excellent con man, to the point where he was able to go from nothing to be on good terms with the royal family. Also people were incredibly gullible and would have more than likely accepted any form of nonscientific witchery if one had the confidence to pull it off. Which Rasputin certainly did, so good for him.
Alright, time to get into the meat and potatoes. Do you guys think the second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki was justified by the United States?
No bomb at all on non-Anglo countries was every justified.
Only Anglo subhumans should have the right to die in firebombings.
Post video games related to /his/ shit.
I'll start with some obvious ones : Paradox Games.
Most are at least somewhat historical, and despite /gsg/ memes, can be fun. Although, the more recently they were released the more casual they get.
Total War: Never really played these.
Mount and blade series: Has some mods that take the setting into europe, also Napoleonic wars is top tier fun.
also mp when
bumping with a screenshot.
This is me not getting anyone to join my coalition.
Discuss Sumerians, Babylon and other related stuff
Assyrians were cool
ITT: We talk about the greatest empire in history.
Is eastern philosophy more practical in terms of everyday life than western philosophy? Seems like the western approach only works in terms of government but not on an individual level.
I don't feel like typing it all out, but there is a risk of becoming a Marquis de Sade if you abandon the ethics in favour of some Post-Modern nonsense like Post-Anarchism or Nietzsche's transvaluation of ideals. This risk increases if you believe cessation of bodily processes ends rebirth.
In hindsight, I'd argue Schopenhauer was a pretty good Western Dharmic practitioner.
generally but ancient greek philosophy is applicable to day-to-day life and that is definitely western but that's because the ancient greek idea of philosophy was 'how do you best live your life' instead of logic-chopping analytical bullshit that began in the enlightenment.
This was designed and manufactured in the '50s, in a time were tv was a new thing and having a washing machine a matter of international politics. And still nowadays you can find F-4s in service in many air forces around the world.
In the 60's, in the age of hippies and vynils, the SR71 Blackbird was flying in the sky.
In the 70's, a decade that saw the general introduction of cassetes and home videos to the amazement of everyone, there were F-15s and F-18s flying in the sky.
Year of our lord 2015, the age of internet, smartphones, virtual...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
There really is now need at this point until a war comes along when satellites are targeted. But in that case they would probably be defended by drones and are most likely more vulnerable to cyberfare anyways.
If I recall correctly the original vietnam F-4s didn't have machine guns as it was the age of the missle, but the missles they had were horrible.
There simply hasn't really been any major-scale wars that require money and/or manpower to be put into military technologies. the 50's, korean war, the 60's and 70's, vietnam and bush war, etc it goes on
Not to mention that the cold war put the two largest superpowers in the world in a technological war against each other. Without the competition, why bother?
>other humanities such as philosophy
This kind of discussion pops up all the time on other boards, it's cool to have a place where it's not totally off topic.
I wanna talk art, specifically what makes something art, and whether different works can be "better" or "worse" than another.
Like, we all have this idea in us that Beethoven (for example) is a better composer than, say, a kid learning piano. And that more experimental works are of more value than something cliche and unoriginal. What makes that so?
Interesting point. It puzzles me that I can't even think of a reasonable definition for what is art.
However, for the Beethoven vs. the kid, I suppose music needs harmony.
If I'm not mistaken, some musicians attempted to make music without harmony in the early 20th century, but everybody gave up because they couldn't listen to it
>I suppose music needs harmony
See, this causes all sorts of problems though.
Like, in terms of just music you've got all sorts of improvisational genres, atonal music, John Cage's shenanigans, and so on.
For the rest of art, this would mean that there's some kind of ruleset an art form must abide by in order to be art, limiting experimentation and the like.
I mean, maybe that's the case, but it doesn't sit right with me.
experimental works are only seen as valuable now because we are in a post-modern age of art. before it was seen as degenerate, but now with the world changing so fast, at least some experimentation in art gives it credence. What is considered art is a reflection of the time from which it comes.
What would have happen if the Roman Empire somehow invaded China
Probably would be shortly defeated because he would be facing the only other as massively centralized empire of the world in their home turf, while months away from their home with a possibly hostile Iranian population on his back fucking with their supply lines.
Better question would be who would win between a Roman Legion or one of the armies of the various Chinese dynasties.
Asking who would win invasion wise is retarded either way because the geography puts neither close for a practical war.
Why is it the best philosophy?
It's not just pure hedonism, prior to what some people think. There's actually a lot of thought behind it. It's also not entirely antithetical to Stoicism. Both philosophies have similar views on death for example.
I agree with a lot of what he had to say. Modern philosophy will never agree on his shit or anything for that matter because "le what if you take what he's saying to it's logical end?" crap.