gstafleu

Philosophical Materialism is not a scientific stance, but a philosophical one. The scientific equivalent would be something like "So far we have been able to explain everything using the hypothesis that that matter is all there is. So, until evidence to the contrary pops up, this will be our default assumption."

Gerard Stafleu

thedistillers

I'm not sure if you realize, but you're quoting Toto. So you're calling Toto an uneducated man.

Toto

Roger keeps repeating this strange idea that "educated" men do not question the validity of his Christian documents. It's just tiresome at this point.

stonewall1012

And toto appears to defend theories that he does not really hold, Example: Chronos / Chrestus connection.

There are many approaches to history Toto. I'm not sure if you are still working within the frame work of: history as the study of influencial men, or history as the study of unseen forces that influence society.

Or if your speaking about the view that history is about metanarratives and metanarratives imply that man's reason is capable of reaching beyond his own perspective which most thinking people deny.

I'm not sure if you believe deconstruction is a valid methodological approach, or if you hold to a more traditional view (which is considered belief in meta narratives in one way or another). When you ask me what my theory of history is that's a very broad and loaded term. I have no context within which to place your view on "theory of history" so I will struggle to answer. In my view methodology and theory usually go hand in hand.

My view would be a type of metanarrative perspective but I do not hold to the simplistic view that biography and context account for everything. In my own view I am what I can a presuppositionalist.

Toto

Did not defend it :banghead:

What does this mean? Did you leave the word "not" out somewhere?

As in Van Til? No wonder I can figure out what you are saying.

thedistillers

What does presuppositionalism have to do with historical methodology? Isn't presuppositionalism a theological approach?

stonewall1012

For one I am not Van Til nor a presuppositional appologist, if you prefer you can consider me a follower of the cross disciplinary approach to history. I consider a priori beliefs as critically important to understanding any world view. I offered my perspective in an olive branch attempt to open dialogue, it appears you have no interest in dialogue only pigeon holing me.

No wonder you CAN figure out what I am saying.... could you be the one missing a Not?

Finally, if you find something I am saying seems unclear... try asking me to clairify. Its considered much more polite in a polite society.

Toto

Everything you say seems unclear. But past attempts to get you to clarify anything have not gotten me anywhere.

So what does this mean? What do you think that most thinking people deny?And when you say What are the disciplines that you apply to history? and what do they have to do with a priori beliefs?

(And yes, I was missing a NOT in that sentence. It must have been a subconscious reflection of what I was thinking.)

stonewall1012

Do you know what I mean when I say that most history up until the 20 century has been varations on the belief in history as a metanarrative?

A metanarrative is an overarching "storyline" that tells the "true" meaning of history. A good example of Metanarrative is Karl Marx view that history can be "understood" as a complex interaction of economic forces controlling man. Of couse the unspoken assumption behind these kind of histories is that the author themselves remain unaffected by these forces and thus are awarded an "objective" position.

Philosophers like Derrida contended that philosphical beliefs and unproven assumptions unconsiously affected the way history was conducted. Post modernism began destroying the foundation that ANYONE could retain a completely "objectively" position.

Few seriously contend that an over arching "meaning" of history is even possible anymore. Hence few thinking people contend that metanarrative are relevant anymore.

I will admit that I am attempting to "cram" quite a bit into a few sentences... This is becuase you have conveyed your displeasure with overly "large" posts.

stonewall1012

Lets just say I believe in using multiple fields to assess history.

If you don't know how a priori beliefs can affect your methodology you might want to try reading Derrida, Michal Foucault, Immanuel Kant, to name just a few.