Org Mobile Site
Thread: The Art of War by KingWarman88
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperbac...shelf/center/1
Buy it and learn everything you need to know about The Art of War!
Buy it and learn everything you need to know about The Art of War!
Is this a joke?
If not, you should lower the price. $22.88 for a 48 page book is a ripoff.
If not, you should lower the price. $22.88 for a 48 page book is a ripoff.
This has been done before
Well, it does have a rating of 5 stars!
Although, I can't even read the text on the title page...
Although, I can't even read the text on the title page...
Wait... I have released my own book!
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperbac...author/right/2
Warman did send a PM but I only skim read it, didn't realised I count as an author (its based on an old IH I did).
Now I can impress wimminz when I tell then I have a book out there worth 50 quid...
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperbac...author/right/2
Warman did send a PM but I only skim read it, didn't realised I count as an author (its based on an old IH I did).
Now I can impress wimminz when I tell then I have a book out there worth 50 quid...
Also, blatantly ripping off a title isn't very kosher. Even if that title is very well known. As someone who will porbably end up doing allot of writing and as someone who has done more citing than any normal man should ever do it just rubs me the wrong way
Are you studying history like the esteemed Rhy and I?
Are you studying history like the esteemed Rhy and I?
wait... its not his first book :O
See, I'm a fancy book man now!
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Also, blatantly ripping off a title isn't very kosher. Even if that title is very well known. As someone who will porbably end up doing allot of writing and as someone who has done more citing than any normal man should ever do it just rubs me the wrong way
Are you studying history like the esteemed Rhy and I?
philosophy > historyAlso, blatantly ripping off a title isn't very kosher. Even if that title is very well known. As someone who will porbably end up doing allot of writing and as someone who has done more citing than any normal man should ever do it just rubs me the wrong way
Are you studying history like the esteemed Rhy and I?
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
philosophy > history
Lies!philosophy > history
I can't really justify that, but I maintain that is a lie!
but dear man, everything is subjective, truth as an objective fact does not exist. you say i lie, but you are merely confused my son. it is ok, you are not alone in this, no person can grasp the full richness of the world.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Lies!
I can't really justify that, but I maintain that is a lie!
It's easy. Philosophy is useless without history, but history has no need of philosophy. Philosophy builds on that which has happened before and which has been postulated by previous philosophers. Without examining history, philosophy cannot operate outside of the most basic metaphysical postulating. History, on the other hand, needs nothing more than itself, though it does gain benefits from some of the historical sciences such as archaeology and historical linguistics.Lies!
I can't really justify that, but I maintain that is a lie!
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Also, blatantly ripping off a title isn't very kosher. Even if that title is very well known. As someone who will porbably end up doing allot of writing and as someone who has done more citing than any normal man should ever do it just rubs me the wrong way
Are you studying history like the esteemed Rhy and I?
Do you use Zotero?Also, blatantly ripping off a title isn't very kosher. Even if that title is very well known. As someone who will porbably end up doing allot of writing and as someone who has done more citing than any normal man should ever do it just rubs me the wrong way
Are you studying history like the esteemed Rhy and I?
So how many books have you sold?
CR
CR
Originally Posted by TinCow:
It's easy. Philosophy is useless without history, but history has no need of philosophy. Philosophy builds on that which has happened before and which has been postulated by previous philosophers. Without examining history, philosophy cannot operate outside of the most basic metaphysical postulating. History, on the other hand, needs nothing more than itself, though it does gain benefits from some of the historical sciences such as archaeology and historical linguistics.
what alot of bs!!!It's easy. Philosophy is useless without history, but history has no need of philosophy. Philosophy builds on that which has happened before and which has been postulated by previous philosophers. Without examining history, philosophy cannot operate outside of the most basic metaphysical postulating. History, on the other hand, needs nothing more than itself, though it does gain benefits from some of the historical sciences such as archaeology and historical linguistics.
philosophy isnt useless without history, the study history of philosophy would be, but thats not philosophy its history. philosophy has no need of history at all. moreso, it can be claimed that philosophy to be effective has to be essentially ahistorical.
Separate and thus comparable entities, I agree. I must vote history though.Though philosophy is unquestionably interesting, it fails to give me nerdy thrills when I delve into it.
Sorry Warman, this struggle is more interesting than your self published book.
Sorry Warman, this struggle is more interesting than your self published book.
I still only read just about three quarter of Sun Tzu
Originally Posted by TinCow:
It's easy. Philosophy is useless without history, but history has no need of philosophy. Philosophy builds on that which has happened before and which has been postulated by previous philosophers. Without examining history, philosophy cannot operate outside of the most basic metaphysical postulating. History, on the other hand, needs nothing more than itself, though it does gain benefits from some of the historical sciences such as archaeology and historical linguistics.
Co-sign and lulzIt's easy. Philosophy is useless without history, but history has no need of philosophy. Philosophy builds on that which has happened before and which has been postulated by previous philosophers. Without examining history, philosophy cannot operate outside of the most basic metaphysical postulating. History, on the other hand, needs nothing more than itself, though it does gain benefits from some of the historical sciences such as archaeology and historical linguistics.
*foamrage* n00bs!!! thats just because you cant fathom the depths of philosophy and therefor choose to puddle the shallow and irrelevant waters of history!!! *foamrage*
sake... where is Reenk when you need him. or Craterus.
sake... where is Reenk when you need him. or Craterus.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
*foamrage* n00bs!!! thats just because you cant fathom the depths of philosophy and therefor choose to puddle the shallow and irrelevant waters of history!!! *foamrage*
sake... where is Reenk when you need him. or Craterus.
Please list for me major philosophical works which do not reference current (at time of publication) events, human history, or the works of previous philosophers.*foamrage* n00bs!!! thats just because you cant fathom the depths of philosophy and therefor choose to puddle the shallow and irrelevant waters of history!!! *foamrage*
sake... where is Reenk when you need him. or Craterus.
dialectica (as in logic), analytic philosophy. lingiustic philosophy. philosophy of mind. sure most books make references but thats only to make examples more vivid. its not neccesary for the core of the philosophy to be valid.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
dialectica (as in logic), analytic philosophy. lingiustic philosophy. philosophy of mind. sure most books make references but thats only to make examples more vivid. its not neccesary for the core of the philosophy to be valid.
Those aren't works, those are simply fields like metaphysics. I agree that there are philosophical fields/methods that do not require references to historical or current events or people to operate. However, none of those fields has any practical value, beyond intellectual stimulation, when isolated from real life examples. Philosophy is important when it educates and guides on the proper methods for humans to live and organize themselves, and such education and guidance cannot be given without real life examples and applications. Philosophy without reference to the real world is simply mental masturbation.dialectica (as in logic), analytic philosophy. lingiustic philosophy. philosophy of mind. sure most books make references but thats only to make examples more vivid. its not neccesary for the core of the philosophy to be valid.
History, on the other hand, is the ultimate guide-book for all aspects of human existence. There is not a single situation that a person can encounter that has not occurred before to at least one other person. By examining the decisions that were made before, and the results of those decisions, we learn to predict the consequences of decisions as yet unmade. There is nothing more important to the future than understanding the past.
but history just for the sake of history and not for implementing it to the benefit of something else is the same story. you can say that everything that happens is or will be part of history but like you said the lesson we learn from history are for understanding the future. so you study history not for its own sake but for the sake of something else.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
but history just for the sake of history and not for implementing it to the benefit of something else is the same story. you can say that everything that happens is or will be part of history but like you said the lesson we learn from history are for understanding the future. so you study history not for its own sake but for the sake of something else.
There is no such thing as history for it's own sake. By its very nature, all history, no matter how 'pure', has a direct application to life. It is impossible to study history without studying the real world. It's the same as engineering or medicine; all studies done in those areas have a direct application to the world we live in as they are completely based on basic elements that are, not just elements that might be. The specific applications can be very minor and insignificant, depending on what it is that is being studied, but all engineering or medical studies create some kind of knowledge that can be applied in the real world.but history just for the sake of history and not for implementing it to the benefit of something else is the same story. you can say that everything that happens is or will be part of history but like you said the lesson we learn from history are for understanding the future. so you study history not for its own sake but for the sake of something else.
Philosophy is a lot like mathematics. There are areas of mathematics that do not have practical applications and only exist as intellectual exercises and curiosities. Those areas can be studied, but they have no impact on the world we live in. This does not make mathematics pointless, indeed it's one of the most important fields ever developed. However, that importance is due to the practical applications, not the theoretical exercises. Philosophy is the same way; it has practical applications and purely theoretical postulating. The purely theoretical has no practical applications, and the practical applications cannot be purely theoretical. Unlike mathematics, though, all practical applications of philosophy require grounding in another field of study. Mathematics can be useful without other sciences; for example, calculating the radius of a circle is a purely mathematical exercise but it has real world applications. In contrast, all aspects of 'pure' philosophy (those that eschew any interaction with another field of study) are inherently irrelevant to the real world. In order for philosophy to be useful in any way, it must build upon and utilize the knowledge of other fields, and for philosophers there is no field more important than history.
Originally Posted by Motep:
Separate and thus comparable entities, I agree. I must vote history though.Though philosophy is unquestionably interesting, it fails to give me nerdy thrills when I delve into it.
Sorry Warman, this struggle is more interesting than your self published book.
I know, my threads are usually better then what I write about. Separate and thus comparable entities, I agree. I must vote history though.Though philosophy is unquestionably interesting, it fails to give me nerdy thrills when I delve into it.
Sorry Warman, this struggle is more interesting than your self published book.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
So how many books have you sold?
CR
2 So how many books have you sold?
CR
Originally Posted by TinCow:
There is no such thing as history for it's own sake. By its very nature, all history, no matter how 'pure', has a direct application to life. It is impossible to study history without studying the real world. It's the same as engineering or medicine; all studies done in those areas have a direct application to the world we live in as they are completely based on basic elements that are, not just elements that might be. The specific applications can be very minor and insignificant, depending on what it is that is being studied, but all engineering or medical studies create some kind of knowledge that can be applied in the real world.
Philosophy is a lot like mathematics. There are areas of mathematics that do not have practical applications and only exist as intellectual exercises and curiosities. Those areas can be studied, but they have no impact on the world we live in. This does not make mathematics pointless, indeed it's one of the most important fields ever developed. However, that importance is due to the practical applications, not the theoretical exercises. Philosophy is the same way; it has practical applications and purely theoretical postulating. The purely theoretical has no practical applications, and the practical applications cannot be purely theoretical. Unlike mathematics, though, all practical applications of philosophy require grounding in another field of study. Mathematics can be useful without other sciences; for example, calculating the radius of a circle is a purely mathematical exercise but it has real world applications. In contrast, all aspects of 'pure' philosophy (those that eschew any interaction with another field of study) are inherently irrelevant to the real world. In order for philosophy to be useful in any way, it must build upon and utilize the knowledge of other fields, and for philosophers there is no field more important than history.
i have to disagree. thats a wrong picture you have of philosophy. and history just for the sake of history does exist. go read gadamer about it XDThere is no such thing as history for it's own sake. By its very nature, all history, no matter how 'pure', has a direct application to life. It is impossible to study history without studying the real world. It's the same as engineering or medicine; all studies done in those areas have a direct application to the world we live in as they are completely based on basic elements that are, not just elements that might be. The specific applications can be very minor and insignificant, depending on what it is that is being studied, but all engineering or medical studies create some kind of knowledge that can be applied in the real world.
Philosophy is a lot like mathematics. There are areas of mathematics that do not have practical applications and only exist as intellectual exercises and curiosities. Those areas can be studied, but they have no impact on the world we live in. This does not make mathematics pointless, indeed it's one of the most important fields ever developed. However, that importance is due to the practical applications, not the theoretical exercises. Philosophy is the same way; it has practical applications and purely theoretical postulating. The purely theoretical has no practical applications, and the practical applications cannot be purely theoretical. Unlike mathematics, though, all practical applications of philosophy require grounding in another field of study. Mathematics can be useful without other sciences; for example, calculating the radius of a circle is a purely mathematical exercise but it has real world applications. In contrast, all aspects of 'pure' philosophy (those that eschew any interaction with another field of study) are inherently irrelevant to the real world. In order for philosophy to be useful in any way, it must build upon and utilize the knowledge of other fields, and for philosophers there is no field more important than history.
i dont believe that when you study history you always actually study the real world. its just a representation and usually a very misguided one due the timelapse. what you actually study are the ideas you have of a past world and if you have any sense you try to understand it in order to use it for the present world. but imo there is nothing actual about it. in that sense history can not be compared to medicine or engineering because history is about what was, and sometimes its about how to use knowledge of what we think was to better understand what might become. i would say history is unique in that sense.
only metaphysical philosophy is alot like mathemathics but i agree that other philosophy which isnt does need other fields to prosper. though i disagree that methaphysics which is per definition unrelated to anything worldly is only mental masturbation.
(also it kinda seems like your concept of history is a philosophically inspired one.)
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
i have to disagree. thats a wrong picture you have of philosophy. and history just for the sake of history does exist. go read gadamer about t XD
i dont believe that when you study history you always actually study the real world. its just a representation and usually a very misguided one due the timelapse. what you actually study are the ideas you have of a past world and if you have any sense you try to understand it in order to use it for the present world. but imo there is nothing actual about it.
True historians study hard facts and do solid research, it's not just "ideas... of a past world." It is no more theoretical than archaeology, which is itself little more than history in science form. History specifically attempts to remove personal bias and opinion from material, and proper historical texts will devote a great deal of time in explaining the inherent flaws in the objectivity of the sources so that the reader will be able to take those things into account when assembling the information into a coherent whole. There is no greater criticism for a historian than to say they are not being objective. There is no right and wrong in history, no morality, there is only determining what happened and what did not.i have to disagree. thats a wrong picture you have of philosophy. and history just for the sake of history does exist. go read gadamer about t XD
i dont believe that when you study history you always actually study the real world. its just a representation and usually a very misguided one due the timelapse. what you actually study are the ideas you have of a past world and if you have any sense you try to understand it in order to use it for the present world. but imo there is nothing actual about it.
What you describe is history as created by Herodotus. True history is that which follows in the footsteps of Thucydides.
And historians and Philosophy guys enerally get stuck working in crap jobs because there is only so many teaching/museum jobs out there and don't hand me the "employers like critical thinking skills" BS because if they do, why is my history major brother with a BA and MA working at Target and never had a job in his history field before,eh? 
Originally Posted by ELITEOFKINGWARMAN88:
And historians and Philosophy guys enerally get stuck working in crap jobs because there is only so many teaching/museum jobs out there and don't hand me the "employers like critical thinking skills" BS because if they do, why is my history major brother with a BA and MA working at Target and never had a job in his history field before,eh?
Money....always money...*sigh. Why cannot the universe let me pursue what I enjoy and make as much as I would have otherwise? A sacrifice of financial stability for happiness...I gladly make it.And historians and Philosophy guys enerally get stuck working in crap jobs because there is only so many teaching/museum jobs out there and don't hand me the "employers like critical thinking skills" BS because if they do, why is my history major brother with a BA and MA working at Target and never had a job in his history field before,eh?
I have not read your works, Warman, but do you think of getting published by a publisher and making some (more) money from it? Not necessarily this'un, but another.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
There is no right and wrong in history, no morality, there is only determining what happened and what did not.
As well as determining the "whys" for both.There is no right and wrong in history, no morality, there is only determining what happened and what did not.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO