In The Advancement of Learning, Francis Bacon makes a considerable effort simply to establish that learning and the accumulation of knowledge is a valid human pursuit, and not a precursor to sin and moral downfall.

...that the aspiring to overmuch knowledge was the original temptation and sin whereupon ensued the fall of man: that knowledge hath in it somewhat of the serpent, and therefore where it entereth into a man it makes hims well....

He counters that assertion by arguing that:

...it was not the pure knowledge of nature and universality, a knowledge by the light whereof man did give names unto other creatures in Paradise, as they were brought before him, according unto their properties, which gave the occasion to the fall: but it was the proud knowledge of good and evil, with an intent in man to give law unto himself, and to depend no more upon God's commandments, which was the form of the temptation.

He makes a much more extensive argument than this, but this at least gives an idea of what he is trying to grapple with: that the accumulation or pursuit of knowledge is not inherently to lead men to temptation and pride, and away from divinity.

My question is, how much is this a novel argument and how much of this is based on late medieval and early modern theology? What is the precedent for the debate he is trying to settle, and how much is he borrowing from previous arguments for the pursuit of knowledge? I'm not that concerned with Bacon's specific influences, but more with the intellectual strains of thought surrounding this topic that he might have had access to.

Was watching a documentary about cave paintings. There tended to be depictions of animals. Are there any known cases of clear and obvious depictions of human penises dating back from before writing? If not, what is the earliest verified date of penis graffiti?

From experience as an army reservist and from modern documentaries/books, soldiers are taught to retain their spent magazine on their kit after performing a reload. Usually if they are in a rush they would keep them in an easy access "dump bag" attached to their webbing/vest.

I'm curious about what the standard operating procedure was for armies during combat in the past. Hollywood and video games want us to believe that empty magazines were tossed on the ground when you run out of ammunition. Were soldiers during World War II/Korea or during the Vietnam war taught to throw away their spent magazines during the heat of combat? Or were they taught to keep them somewhere accessible when reloading? If they tossed them, did they pick them up afterwards? Was there an ample supply of magazines for soldiers to take during resupply?

Examples: M1 Carbine magazines BAR magazines M1 Thompson magazines M1 Garand metal clips MP40 magazines M14 / M16 magazines

Thank you for your analysis.

Considering that there were Danish kings of England until 1044, it would seem very surprising if they all but disappeared from the landscape in 20 years. Yet I can barely recall learning about anything Norse influenced after the Norman invasion, aside from day- names (e.g. Thursday=Thor's Day)

I've always wondered if they originally thought about Hitler's ideas as brilliant before the war, and then later realized the lunacy of it all?

I'm trying to learn about this battle but it is a little tricky. Here's what I think I know(please correct me if I'm wrong).

Liege knew they were going to be attacked so they destroyed most but not all of their bridges. However, Germans made it into the city via some of these bridges on some date(if you know please help). Enrich von Ludendorff rode to the citadel, alone because he thought it had surrendered, but found that it was still occupied. Despite this, Ludendorff managed to get them to believe they were outnumbered, a bluff since he was alone. It works and he gains control of Liege and later uses massive Big Bertha artillery to destroy the forts and secure the route through Belgium for Germany.

My questions are: How much fighting took place inside Liege? Was it all contained outside of Liege or was their continuous fighting inside the city until it was captured?

Did Ludendorff actually capture the city alone or was it an exaggeration?

Did the city fall in two days after the siege began?

What did the forts do when Liege was occupied. I know they kept fighting until the 16th but did they make attempts to recapture the city?

Sorry if this is a lot of questions but I am trying to write a story and a lot of this information will help me piece it together. Also, I know some of my information might be inaccurate and I really appreciate corrections. Lastly, some of these questions might not have true answers and I understand that.

Thanks

In short, I'm doing a research project on the subject above. I'm in the preliminary stages of research but my intended focus is largely on the impact the American Progressive movement had in the early twentieth century on the emergence of the American welfare state under FDR in the 1930s.

Are there any primary and secondary sources my fellow (and likely more veteran in this particular field) historians would recommend I check out in this line of research?

I recently read the book "the code of the samurai", I am now looking for a book that could explain to me what Bushido is in detail. I also plan on reading the Hagakure. What other books explain what a samurai would have acted like or what their views would have been.

For someone who has to wear such finery all the time, it must have been difficult to combat unsavory excretions. So what about those who, for whatever reason, would have had to stay planted to their chamberpots? Was there anger at their absence, misgivings about their real reasons for staying out of the public eye, or ridicule for their unseemly ailment?

I've been reading a lot lately about the Washington Naval Treaty and the others, so I know the 5 Ws. What I haven't seen a lot of is judgement on the intent and effectiveness of them. Were they good ideas? Did they achieve their objective? Were they meaningless since WW2 broke out anyway? Did they make WW2 better or worse?

Ive heard of the atrocities committed by the Russians and the Germans, but I cant remember reading about the POWs captured by the US.

As the title says, were shields ever used in Japan? (All periods before the implementation of gun powder) If not, then how come?

We know about wars and leaders and philosophers and artists. But do we know much about their farmers or store owners or schools?

I keep hearing that it was a side arm yet in one doccumentary about japanese warfare it did show unmounted samurai using them as their main weapon.

Another question I have is - why samurai stopped being horse archers?

Im taking a class on prehispanic latin american belives, cosmovision/religion. Mostly on the mapuche peoples. The teacher says that most pagan faiths are the same. When i asked him about indo europeam faiths, he said it is a german myth from the pre nazi era and that hellenic civilisation came from afro- asian invasion/migration. Are there any comments on this believe? He said i should read the black athena book

Fear of the East is still a common theme in the West, from the naming of software like "mongo" (an Australian prerogative describing Asians and meaning 'stupid'), to media (famous and popular black rappers talking about killing Korean mother's), and even in politics with the black first lady snubbing the chinese first lady, etc...

Yet when we hear of jihadist, we only hear of the terrors of the mongols, but targetting crusaders is prevalent in jihadist propaganda. What did the crusaders do that is blacked out of Western history?

Edit: This is my first post here, and this got labelled as food. My apologies. If the mods could fix it, that would be appreciated.