spin

Can you not know that Tutankhamen existed? that Egypt and Hatti fought a war? Can you not know that Augustus existed, minted coins, built monuments, left likenesses, a personal list of achievements? If you cannot know these things then aren't you in the wrong place?

This is uncalled for bile.

Solitary Man

No, you can't "know". It's a philosophical question, spin, but it doesn't affect how we do history.

"Knowledge" is so elastic that mountainman is actually able to claim that all of Christianity was invented by Eusebius and Constantine. The evidence is against him, but evidence is still merely evidence.

But I'm thinking that you really don't care for the deep philosophical discussions. You just want to take a cheap shot. Pitiful.

No, it's quite right. Doug has been shown wrong already, what possible good can be gained for entertaining something that is already shown to be factually inaccurate?

spin

This seems to be repackaged Berkelean claptrap.

I gave you a few plain examples to deal with. Deal with them. This kindergarten approach to the elasticity of knowledge is puerile.

If you want to talk about the fabric of history you should deal with its issues.

I think you are both shooting air. That doesn't change my comment's accuracy about the uncalled for bile. In what you were dealing with, no you hadn't shown that Doug Shaver was wrong. You showed you disagreed with him. You have an overburdening desire to show that there must have been some historical core, while dismally failing to show that there was, while he is farting around with the unhistorical for mythical analysis. You are in no position to make meaningful judgments about the invalidity of his conclusions.

In fact, as the historicity of Jesus has been assumed for a couple of millennia and carries with it a baggage of apologetics which blinkers meaningful analysis, it should seem useful to allow efforts to test the assumption, rather than incessantly poo-pooing it out of hand. In the post-post-modernist world we live in today, we have to be thankful that the glibness of the past has been shaken. You seem to be on the side of rolling over and letting the glibness of the past press on in all its blinkered glory. I think this forum should be stimulating efforts to develop approaches to analyze the assumption -- approaches that may ultimately be wrong --, but they need the space to be taken to their best shot, rather than heavy-handedly attempting to assert their wrongness, as you have (while having nothing tangible to offer for the alternative).

Historical Jesusism has a lot of money and resources behind it. Mythical Jesusism is a cottage industry which cannot compete on the open market because of the other's control of outlets, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on its potential quality of product. We should be supporting the cottage industry.


spin

Solitary Man

Who?

You've seriously lost your damn mind if a) you bark at me for advocating ignoring Doug Shaver's trife, b) offer mere names and expect that to fly as "examples", and c) insult me and think that all is fine and dandy. If you can't deal with the substance of the arguments, then why the fuck are you even bothering?

What issues? You haven't raised a single issue. You've just been full of hot so far.

Bile? Pot, meet kettle. No, for fuck's sake, spin, if you don't have anything to say, why say anything at all? Your logorrhea is nauseating.

Stick to the subject. You're starting to sound like mountainman who interjects irrelevant comments to push an agenda because you can't stand that others disagree with your pet theory.

spin

Try philosophy 101 before pretending to know about the subject.

This is one of your "fuck" rhetoric posts. That's usually a sign that you're dribbling.

If you want to talk about knowledge start somewhere serious, rather than fleeing from the stuff of history to mountainman.

Did you read what I said: "its issues"? Not my issues. I alluded to them when I pointed to solid starting points of historical knowledge. But you are too busy on your anti-historical crusade.

(Typically, you don't deal with what your comment is attached to.)

No, I'd say you're more like the pot looking for a kettle.

You should watch your language. You are showing yourself as a sockpuppet for another poster who often said "for fuck's sake" and variations.

Ie let you keep your head firmly buried in the sand so that you don't have to deal with tangible history for it is from the firm points in history that you work to expand historical knowledge. That's what the examples I gave earlier were for, to say something that we can know about the past as a start of a framework on which to hang more data from the past. That's how history is done.

An effort to clarify for others some of the issues in understanding history.

Your self-ironic rhetoric is only par for your course. You hurry to insult and drop the pretense of content. Can't you at least do both at once?

Is this the Latinist in you speaking or the wanker?

You froth at the mouth every time someone someone challenges the dogmas you espouse.

If you want to talk about the fabric of history in a coherent manner, I'll be happy to accommodate you. Your discussion of history was why I commented here.


spin

Solitary Man

Took it, got an A, have the transcript to prove it. Try some real thinking before criticizing what you don't know.

Yes, I have a basketball in my hand. But I notice that you failed to even address anything I said.

I started, and you've yet to contribute anything. Hot air, Mr. H.

Nice try, spin, but the only issues surrounding the names you gave would be the ones you supply. But nice fallacy! You've really mastered the whole bait and switch tactic, haven't you?

More hot air.

Right. And this is coming from a guy who was banned from all the major lists because he insulted everyone who criticized him, so he fled to here and to R&R where he could keep his precious pseudonymity and act as a big fish in a little pond instead of admitting the pseudo-scholar that he is.

No shit, Sherlock. A is a topic of epistemology. It has little bearing on the practical applications of B, which is history. If you actually read what I write instead of spewing out garbage, perhaps you would have caught that before you foolishly attacked a strawman, another favorite fallacious tactic of yours.

Are you serious? Look at what I said. Look at what you said. The worst preteen bully in the world couldn't make a more boorish and irrelevant comment. Stick to the subject.

Really? A. What dogmas? B. I can produce many witnesses here where I'm good friends with people I disagree with. I even cordially disagreed with you once, but then saw how fatuously violent you get when someone challenges you. You've been nothing but rude to Ben Smith, Jeffrey Gibson, Roger Pearse, GakuseiDon, and others. Perhaps you're looking in a mirror. Perhaps you just rubbed off on me.

No, you commented because you have an inflated ego and can't stand that I disagree with you and call you out on your bias and poor and sloppy methodology. That and my take on "knowing" is after all something of a parody of your views on literary transmission.

spin