Inb4 Holocaust denial
thefuck
i see this more going in the direction of evolution never happened, christianity blabla
*Life never happened*
Now I don't think anyone has meddled with history on a large scale
accept evolution, dinosaurs, the holocaust and 911 ofcYou mean that all of these never happened? Better get yourself some tin foil.
You mean that all of these never happened? Better get yourself some tin foil.
You can talk about history as much as you want, but can you prove it really has happend? Does any proof really exist?
I think you need to go to a museum.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no...
Seem you don't get what I wrote. I meant a PROOF.
Well, I was in museum, and than another, and one more. Seen a lot of stuff, but how can you prove, that they existed before?
That at one time or another someone went 'LOL lets make a load of ruins and pretend there was a great civilisation here'?
Rantrex got some truth to what he says though. Check the 3 biggest religions and their holy text. Over such a long time info can get mixed with and changed into what once was the truth to something fake.
About religion: there are some texts I have to agree to exist, but why would I care if they were written in the past? They don't need to be symbols. They are just prety nice hope givers and manners teachers.
People dont realize this yet, but once the computer power gets strong enough to simulate a reality close to our own one would begin to question do we live in some similar virtual simulation run by an advanced civilization for their research/amusement
Well, it's still about history and events.
How far back do you remember (have memories)? Childhood?
If it would be possible to fly around our earth with 4x the speed of light, wouldn't we be just being incredibly fast and taking that distance 4*times the speed of light, why would it have an influence on time at all.
But imagine, that is possible to create human looking for 30 y.o. with brain memorizing events that never happened. This human will be like occupant from "The lost room" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhAGrJW2Tos). Noone knows his history, and he's the only one being concerned about some "other" past.
Go home Rantrex, you're high!
But I would rather see person alive AND dying than seeing those remains. THEN I would know, that the date of this persons death is 100% accurate and such event happened.
If you have nothing interesting to say about history, then stop shitposting in such topic.
Well, it may require some heavy thinking to understand some points about if past had plays or not, but it's nothing abstract. I know some people would have a problem with this, but there are also a lot of other things and facts you have to accept no matter what you think about it. But some lies repeated milions of times may look like truth, if everybody around accept it. It's called peer preasure.
What's the year you've been born (and are you pretty sure you've been born)? What's the first thing you remember?
People dont realize this yet, but once the computer power gets strong enough to simulate a reality close to our own one would begin to question do we live in some similar virtual simulation run by an advanced civilization for their research/amusementWould it really matter? I wouldn't give two fucks about being in some virtual simulation as long as it changed nothing whatsoever from my current life.
Would it really matter? I wouldn't give two fucks about being in some virtual simulation as long as it changed nothing whatsoever from my current life.
Who gives a shit about the movements of blazing balls of gas on fire thousands and millions of lightyears away though?Entire professions and organizations, oddly enough.
Sure history happened, what kind of question is that? Instead we should discuss if history really happened the way it's written in history books.
And no, I do not deny that the holocaust happened, I just think that not everything the government and historians tell us about it is 100% true.
Entire professions and organizations, oddly enough.
some people believe in science.
One believes in religion. One understands science. Major difference.
Belief is categorically indifferent to any proposition whether or not there's any justification for it being true (or false). Understanding is simply a cognitive condition of awareness. Belief is what dictates whether you accept its statements.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted
Nothing is true, everything is permitted
One simple question.Are there any proof you exist? :D
You can talk about history as much as you want, but can you prove it really has happend? Does any proof really exist?
Are there any proof you exist? :D
i believe that the biggest problem of Humanity is
The Thought:
I cant.....
This concept might be relevant to the topic you are discussing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historicism
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this, but legitimizing ridiculous meaningless gibberish (like the OP) by cloaking it in fancy sounding verbiage will usually be done with some element of post-modern social "science".
This quote from the wikipedia link sumarizes my opinion on New Historicism: "a refuge for English majors without critical talent or broad learning in history or political science. [...] To practice it, you must apparently lack all historical sense."
Which is not to say that all of the social sciences and the humanities are worthless disciplines. Just that they are too easily used by mediocre "intellectuals" who feel equipped to tackle any and all subjects despite a total lack of knowledge in any other fields.
Oh come on Oberyn.
Firstly, read the OP again.
And secondly, as wasted as I am, please Ignore all wrtitings eroors. I'm wasted. Just read the OP again.
He asked in simple english. Even I understand it. Where exactly is "fancy sounding verbiage"?
That's all.
And also What does verbiage even mean? I don't know where my dictioanary is. Please help me.
To ask if history itself can be proved is retarded.
It's a complex question. I'm not even sure the present is happening. Then you bring time into the mix, which is another big mystery.question is not if history ever happened imho .. something did happen for sure ( cant really deny existance of a timeline ) , but it gets harder to recover its information proportional to past time. History from schoolbooks should never been taken for certain, its more like "as far as we can recover from our sources". That also makes history so fascinating, because you have to "read between the lines". :P
Nothing outside my mind is real, you are all my elaborate imagination
Why did history begin when it did and not before or after? Is history a self-limiting engine? Will we move beyond the need for history?
Why did history begin when it did and not before or after? Is history a self-limiting engine? Will we move beyond the need for history?
According to this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man)
The historical process ends with liberal democracy, so there is only economical and technological development afterwards. It might look like an intimidating book, but it is actually very easy to read. Fukuyama mostly quotes other authors, and makes some theoretical assumptions regarding future political development.
Nothing shocking or groundbreaking there, and, in my opinion, is worth the reading for someone like me, who is interested in this subject, but finds the sources too heavy to read.
According to this book:tl;dr version of this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man)
The historical process ends with liberal democracy, so there is only economical and technological development afterwards. It might look like an intimidating book, but it is actually very easy to read. Fukuyama mostly quotes other authors, and makes some theoretical assumptions regarding future political development.
Nothing shocking or groundbreaking there, and, in my opinion, is worth the reading for someone like me, who is interested in this subject, but finds the sources too heavy to read.
"I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military."Lol. Well, good night then...
...In theory nothing wrong with that, but i would make it more dependend with what nations would be replaced afterwards with, to be able to judge the change in the end, if it was an improvement for the people.
Also what exactly is wrong with seeking the end of nations ? Even if it takes hundreds of years or just doesn't work ?
One simple question.
You can talk about history as much as you want, but can you prove it really has happend? Does any proof really exist?
Also what exactly is wrong with seeking the end of nations ? Even if it takes hundreds of years or just doesn't work ?
It won't bring the utopia you may suppose. There will still be groups of haves and have nots. There will still be government. And most irreducibly, there will still be human nature.
It won't bring the utopia you may suppose. There will still be groups of haves and have nots. There will still be government. And most irreducibly, there will still be human nature.The nations/states we currently have really are the best all things considered, not in their current state but the concept is right. If we don't preserve them our future won't look bright. Leftists don't seem to understand that what follows the "classical nations" are superstates and nothing else. If it comes to that you can wave goodbye to individualism, privacy and freedom. Just read 1984.
History, especially the history of wars, is decided by the victors and those with power. Has history happened exactly like how it's described in our text books? I'd have to say probably not.Such novel thoughts. I'm sure nobody has heard these exact sentiments ever before.
The nations/states we currently have really are the best all things considered, not in their current state but the concept is right. If we don't preserve them our future won't look bright. Leftists don't seem to understand that what follows the "classical nations" are superstates and nothing else. If it comes to that you can wave goodbye to individualism, privacy and freedom. Just read 1984.
It won't bring the utopia you may suppose. There will still be groups of haves and have nots. There will still be government. And most irreducibly, there will still be human nature.
Such novel thoughts. I'm sure nobody has heard these exact sentiments ever before.
nor has anyone ever been a snarky cunt before"History is written by the winners" came as news to you, then? Not heard that a thousand times before? I see.
I did not put forth an argument. I made a statement.
Now for the argument. I agree that history shows a record of continual improvement of the human condition. That is cause for hope. But my reading of human nature, which has not changed over the course of history of the species, persuades me that even a "one world" government would not make decisions based on what's good for the planet or for the greatest good or for whatever other metric, other than self interest.
Just look at whatever political subdivision you happen to live in. I'm sure in the city government (no national groups involved) decisions are based on cutting up the political pie, steering contracts to friends, increasing personal wealth, etc, etc.
It's human nature that you want to change. That is a sisyphean task.
And I agree with Laufknoten. I'm not so sure I'm ready to subsume into the "borg" called "one world" government.
First if you do not agree about the "borg" of a world government, why do you agree on the "borg" of a national government ? Neither of those are run for your own well-being, and a national government is not "closer" to you, it doesn't care about you.
Second, the "problem" of human nature is completely orthogonal to this discussion, I don't understand why you keep mentioning it.
Because my interests are better served, and my liberties are better protected, at this point by my national government than they would be by the UN (closest we've gotten to a world organization).
Secondly, human nature is directly related to your contention that a world government would be superior to nations. Factions or "interests" would replace "nations". It would be a change in name only. You can't impose a system that is disregards human nature. It's bound to fail. The Soviets proved that. Humans largely operate in the furtherance of their self interest. That would not change if nations disappear.
Therefore if you seek to have a world in which selfless decisions are made, which is what you are driving at I think, getting rid of nations won't accomplish it.
One simple question.
You can talk about history as much as you want, but can you prove it really has happend? Does any proof really exist?