mountainman

My perspective on history is outlined here and might be described as historical revisionism.

Apart from this persective on the business of history, what other issues might I provide my own personal perspective upon? You mention Post Modernism numerously. It is just a phrase. Why do you see it as critically important? I have read Rand but prefer Momigliano at the moment. Most things are tidal.


Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

No. When it survives a test, then it is confirmed. Confirmation and support are different things.

stonewall1012

I would agree that things seem to go in waves or what one might call cyclic repetition. However, post modernism doesn't appear to be disappearing any time soon. I suppose we could wait 100 years and see what happens, thats the historian side of me speaking of course.

However, while I do not hold to PM, the way I understand it in history I believe its significant. Now of course I will betray my own historical philosophical leanings but I appear to have found a kindred soul of sorts in you mr. mountainman.

I believe PM is the logical culmination of the last 500 years of philosophical and intellectual research. Ayn Rand's determined Objectivism (in my humble opinion) is a last dying attempt at certainty in an intellectual world crumbling apart.

In short I see the next 100 years or so as critical. There are many options that I believe the "West" could take. In short I believe PM is the harbinger of a new Worldview. Personally, I don't think that it is workable in itself as it is just too unstable and in some ways crazy.

I consider PM important because I see it as a direct reaction to and at the same time derived from modernism.

Why do you dismiss it so flippantly?

aa5874

Confirmed to be what?

A claim cannot be CONFIRMED to be valid without support or suvives a test.

And inversely, a claim is CONFIRMED to be invalid when it has no support or fails a test.


The claim "Jesus rose from the dead, after being dead for three days" is invalid, it cannot be supported or survive a test. That claim can be considered to be bogus.

stonewall1012

Can the claim that Alexander the Great died in babylon be tested and confirmed? I mean surly we would all agree he died... most humans do. But can we test and confirm that Alexander the Great died in Babylon and was transported to Alexandria for burial? Let us test another theory, Julius Caesar was killed in the Roman Senate by Roman senators. What "objective" test can we put together to prove this claim?
My point is not that Jesus rose from the dead or not... my point is that when it comes to history science is nearly worthless. Events that happened once can NEVER occur again.

Can you test that I was born? Sure, you can ask my mother, ask my doctor, ask my father but that is not a scientific test that is a test of "Trust" and "logic" do you trust my father, mother, doctor to "tell the truth". You can ask what motive one might have to lie, ask for other options, but there is NO scientific proof (observation and reduplication) that can prove that I was born.

The point is that one must be very careful what assertions you are making. Certainly you can say you do not believe it, you can say it failes the "trust" test but some "objective" scientific test... History is incapable of verification through direct observation and it is impossible to conduct a reduplication. Choose your words carefully.

mountainman

I am not dismissive of the philosophy associated with post modernism, or indeed any philosophy. It may well be important as you say. However I have somehow confined myself to the terrain of ancient history, which is not the same thing as philosophy, although doubtlessly they must have common ground somewhere.

One thing also which I tend to follow is the advice of a poet who described the mechanics of clouds drifting through the sky as analogous to thoughts and ideas and concepts and emotions drifting through our conscious awareness. The poet points out that the clouds are not the sky; that these thoughts and ideas and emotions are not the background awareness in which things arise and fall away. This is not Kant but Telopa.


Best wishes

aa5874

Please read my post carefully. I never mentioned Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, and I never made any claim about their deaths in my previous post.

I chose my words carefully.

The claim "Jesus ROSE from the dead after being dead for three days" is invalid. It cannot be supported or survive a test. The claim can be considered to be bogus.

I am dealing specifically with Jesus of the NT, and his resurrection can be reasonably considered to be invalid and laughable.

For how many days did Alexander and Julius remain dead, before they were resurrected?

stonewall1012

And you apparently ignored what I said... claiming that the Jesus "event" fails some test is pointless unless that "test" applies to all historical events.

Doug Shaver

A claim is a proposition. Validity does not apply to propositions. They are neither valid nor invalid. Validity applies to arguments. Propositions comprise arguments but are not arguments.

stonewall1012

Holy Cow some one who actually uses and knows logic!!