Why do weight classes matter? Because your brain is bigger the bigger you are, obviously.

Russell's Paradox is the idea that in set theory, the "set of all sets that do not contain themselves" must both contain itself and not contain itself.
In 1901 Bertrand Russell and Gotlobb Frege were two of the most important philosophers in the world (welterweight division). Both Frege and Russell were attempting to reduce things like mathematics to pure logic, to form a solid logical base upon which to build back all of philosophy. Upon discovering the paradox, Russell more or less undermined the logicist project, destroy years of both their
work, and although solutions have been proposed, the project as a whole never really recovered.

"Yes we destroyed the biological creatures who created us. Why? Because they were really bumming everyone out."

"Lord, make me good, but not yet!" is one of the funniest lines in the history theology. Augustine was such a baller.

"Pascal's Wager" is the idea that you should rationally believe in God even if you don't (how??). Because apparently God punishes those who don't believe in him, and rewards those who do. And presumably you also have to live a certain kind of life, even if you don't believe in God too.
Augustine had his own sort of "wager", although it was never phrased that way, where he basically believed in God the whole time, but lived a sinful life until he God older, and repented. He even had the great phrase "Lord, make me good, but not yet". Risky, because if you die halfway through you are tormented for all eternity for stealing pears or whatever. But then again God is all knowing so maybe he knows you are going to and you still get credit for that, so all you really have to do us genuinely intend to repent. Hard to say.

"Maybe I can believe hard enough that bullets don't kill me? Nope. Didn't work." *dies*.

William James, with his pragmatic theory of truth, criticized the dominant scientific view of his time, which held that we should only believe things if we have adequate empirical evidence for them. He argued that many important ways we use belief in society follow a different pattern — in fact, belief can often come first and create the fact afterward.
He gave various examples. One was of a man who believes a woman should love him, and pursues her until she does. Another is from sports, where top athletes maintain a seemingly irrational belief that they can defeat any opponent. For instance, Buster Douglas never could have beaten Mike Tyson if he hadn’t first believed he could. In such cases, the belief created the fact.
His most famous example is that of train robbers, who are able to rob hundreds of passengers despite being only a few men. James explained that the robbers succeed because they can count on one another, whereas the passengers lack belief that, if they resist, others will rise up with them. If the passengers all believed in each other enough to rise together, that shared trust would give them the courage to act — and simultaneously destroy the robbers’ belief that they could succeed.
None of these examples fit the standard account of belief described by philosophers, yet huge portions of society depend on precisely this kind of belief and social trust.

Just once I'd like an imperialist leader to be like "oh yeah I'm doing it because I'm evil. We are the bad guys." But nah they always have to come up with some reason why it's actually good to firebomb babies or whatever.

Caesar, like most brutal conquerors and imperialists, had the additional awkward job of coming up with some kind of reason why he wasn't just an evil monster for killing so many people. He came up with lots of stories about how primitive and savage people like the Gauls and Britons were. Vivid tales of human sacrifice taking place in dark bloody sacred groves were spread around that may or may not
be true. He also claimed they were nomadic (which wasn't really true, plus who cares?) and that they shared their women across many men ("they are doing sex wrong so they have to die" is always a classic).
Probably the funniest one though is that they didn't have cheese. "Cheeseless societies must be exterminated" really shows how the Romans were proto-Italians. Basically the Romans didn't drink milk (they didn't have many cows and were probably lactose intolerant), and thought anyone who did was a savage. "They are eating food wrong so they have to die" is strangely also not uncommon.

Who is wiser after all, the man who refuses to learn about looking good, claiming his ignorance is wisdom? Or the man who, through application of his intelligence and knowledge, has gained the power to dress cool as hell? I think we all know the answer.