- This topic has 4 voices and 56 replies.
-
Posts
-
I think he is talking about the post-modern deconstructionism and revisionism of the Foucault and Derrida variety. You know, the nihilistic view that everything is relative championed and originated by 1960's and 70's French philosophers?
I think he is talking about the post-modern deconstructionism and revisionism of the Foucault and Derrida variety. You know, the nihilistic view that everything is relative championed and originated by 1960's and 70's French philosophers?
In English please. ;DActually what I'm talking about is the modern trend of attempting to minimize Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome cultures and placing an over-emphasis on other cultures by adding different, non-important, and sometimes non-existent elements because it makes people feel good and part of "the global community." Modernists just can't stand that the history of Western Civilization is Euro- and Christian- centric. We're supposed to be "politically-correct" now by adding Orientalism and Islamicism to our history. Well, sorry, but with this student, it ain't gonna happen. I'm going to learn and teach history how it was, not how I or others want it to be because it fits in with the current trend of revisionism.And what do you mean this is others' opinions? By showing historical fact and archaeological evidence, I have refuted just about every claim you've made of alleged Islamic contribution and have shown that Greece and Rome already started it.
I think he is talking about the post-modern deconstructionism and revisionism of the Foucault and Derrida variety. You know, the nihilistic view that everything is relative championed and originated by 1960's and 70's French philosophers?
In English please. ;DActually what I'm talking about is the modern trend of attempting to minimize Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome cultures and placing an over-emphasis on other cultures by adding different, non-important, and sometimes non-existent elements because it makes people feel good and part of "the global community." Modernists just can't stand that the history of Western Civilization is Euro- and Christian- centric. We're supposed to be "politically-correct" now by adding Orientalism and Islamicism to our history. Well, sorry, but with this student, it ain't gonna happen. I'm going to learn and teach history how it was, not how I or others want it to be because it fits in with the current trend of revisionism.And what do you mean this is others' opinions? By showing historical fact and archaeological evidence, I have refuted just about every claim you've made of alleged Islamic contribution and have shown that Greece and Rome already started it.
Very sorry and I have to apologize: I forgot that a student can be a genius as well 🙂
I think he is talking about the post-modern deconstructionism and revisionism of the Foucault and Derrida variety. You know, the nihilistic view that everything is relative championed and originated by 1960's and 70's French philosophers?
In English please. ;DActually what I'm talking about is the modern trend of attempting to minimize Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome cultures and placing an over-emphasis on other cultures by adding different, non-important, and sometimes non-existent elements because it makes people feel good and part of "the global community." Modernists just can't stand that the history of Western Civilization is Euro- and Christian- centric. We're supposed to be "politically-correct" now by adding Orientalism and Islamicism to our history. Well, sorry, but with this student, it ain't gonna happen. I'm going to learn and teach history how it was, not how I or others want it to be because it fits in with the current trend of revisionism.And what do you mean this is others' opinions? By showing historical fact and archaeological evidence, I have refuted just about every claim you've made of alleged Islamic contribution and have shown that Greece and Rome already started it.
Very sorry and I have to apologize: I forgot that a student can be a genius as well 🙂
Aah, The condescension of one who is no longer in school and can be comfortable in the knowledge that he already knows everything worth knowing. Teenagers are like that too. I have one. ;D
I think he is talking about the post-modern deconstructionism and revisionism of the Foucault and Derrida variety. You know, the nihilistic view that everything is relative championed and originated by 1960's and 70's French philosophers?
In English please. ;D
Here is a link to a thread in which Donnie and I discussed post-modernism. Ironically, you started the thread: Historians, this site also provides a pretty good primer on its adherents and opponents: POSTMODERNISM AND ITS CRITICS. I will say that post-modernism is very convoluted and I for one, am convinced its proponents are deliberately obscure. It is also a complex subject because you can never get a post-modernist to definitively declare anything. Once you get into the theory it becomes easier to spot it by post-modernism's basic antipathy to anything even remotely implying morality or finality. In post-modernism literally everything is relative and reality is shaped by individual rather than shared perception.Have fun looking into it. Motrin helps, I promise. ;D
I forgot that a student can be a genius as well 🙂
Never claimed to be a genius. Apparently I should apologize for getting my information from primary and reliable secondary sources instead of going with my feelings and emotions.
I forgot that a student can be a genius as well 🙂
Never claimed to be a genius. Apparently I should apologize for getting my information from primary and reliable secondary sources instead of going with my feelings and emotions.
Forget it pls 😉
In 1947, Pieter Geyl used his book Napoleon For and Against to advance his view that all historians are influenced by the present when writing history and thus all historical writing is transitory.In Geyl's view, there never can be a definitive account for all ages because every age has a different view of the past. (Geyl, Pieter (1982) [1947]. Napoleon For and Against. Penguin Books. ISBN 0452000572.)An interesting thing is to look for the sources that some Historians (and members) use to state , refute, claim or deny opinions about History. Interesting and enlightening...
An interesting thing is to look for the sources that some Historians (and members) use to state , refute, claim or deny opinions about History. Interesting and enlightening...
Indeed, it is.
An interesting thing is to look for the sources that some Historians (and members) use to state , refute, claim or deny opinions about History. Interesting and enlightening...
Indeed, it is.
Well I was not the first to start that kind of post. There is another one already in this Forum, quite interesting. Check the link:
Refutation/explanation of what is and is not a valid source. Or should we run them past you first? Are you volunteering to be the boards censor of what is and is not valid?
I'll give them this (and this was before Islam), the Arabs preserved a lot of ancient text (but so did the Irish and Benedictine monks)So here's a better question. What ORIGINAL contribution did Islam make to western civilization?
Check this out, some original contribitions are presenthttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8472111.stm
Nice bit here:
But in the later Middle Ages, the Muslim world came under attack from Europeans (in the Crusades) and the Mongols (who sacked Baghdad in 1258) and the Ottoman Turks overran the remnants of the Byzantine empire, setting up a formidably centralised state.
it was not Islam or the Arabs who were at fault for the muslim worlds decison to stay in the Middle Ages, it was those dang Crusaders and Pagan Mongols that did it.Nobody is saying the Arabs accomplished nothing, we are saying they benefitted and transmitted the work of others. Even the linked article says so:
It incorporates elements from many cultures, representing the different cultural and scientific traditions which combined and flowed through the Muslim world.
and
Also on display is an algebra textbook published in England in 1702, whose preface traces the development of algebra from its beginnings in India, through Persia, the Arab world and to Europe
Lastly this quote sheds some light on why they are setting up the exhibition in the first place, it is not to set the record straight but in pursuit of that wonderfully post-modernist ideal of... ... ;DDIVERSITY ;D
"Arabic and Muslim culture particularly is a little-known story in Britain. This is a real opportunity to show that hidden story." She says the hands-on exhibition suits the museum's style, which she describes as "heavy-duty scholarship produced in a user-friendly way and underpinned by academic research". She adds: "We are opening people's eyes to a new area of knowledge - a cultural richness of science and technology that has perhaps been neglected in this country."
See it was the evil europeans who suppressed the knowledge of Islam's greatness, it was actually a cover-up, maybe even the illuminati were involved.Do people really buy this line of reasoning? The Kool-aid is strong in Europe and America and getting stronger all the time.Totally unrelated but I think it is discriminatory that we cant make a word rainbow colored, the font selections probably dont foster diversity either. I will have to complain to the emperor. 😀
