4 ms·

> I'm sorry, but this is a profound misapprehension of the humanities: one of the first things you do in the study of history is learn that history is a human p

by eloff 6y ago

> I'm sorry, but this is a profound misapprehension of the humanities: one of the first things you do in the study of history is learn that history is a human project, subject to human flaws. We don't take Thucydides and Herodotus at their words; we expect the "facts" of history to be distorted. Sure, but there's still a basis in facts where can corroborate accounts from different authors, even different sides in a war. yes it's subject to interpretation, and there's no one right answer. But you also can't just make stuff up and get people to take you seriously. There's some rigour to making and presenting your arguments. Very different to gender studies. > I know that it's difficult, but please consider whether your own positions have become dogmatic. You don't have to agree with prevailing views in gender studies (I don't even know what they are!); you merely have to ask yourself whether you're qualified to dismiss it as "an ideology with very little basis in reality." Maybe. I've seen a lot of terrible examples of things from gender studies. I'm sure there have to be some redeeming ideas right? The whole field can't be 100% worthless. But by and large there's not much value in it and a lot of nonsense, incorrect, and even dangerous thinking to be found there.

woodruffw 6y ago
> Sure, but there's still a basis in facts where can corroborate accounts from different authors, even different sides in a war. yes it's subject to interpretation, and there's no one right answer. But you also can't just make stuff up and get people to take you seriously. There's some rigour to making and presenting your arguments. Very different to gender studies. Except that a lot of it is just made up! Both the Greeks and Romans were happy to make up foundational and battle stories to support their cultural lodestones; we don't really know much about how Rome was founded other than that it certainly wasn't Romulus and Remus. Even our best period sources (Dionysus of Halicarnassus and Livy) were (1) 800 years too late, and (2) under immense political pressure to "prove" (there's that word again) that the myths were real. And note: the greatness of Rome is conditioned on the greatness of their founding myth, which goes from Romulus and Remus to the great Aeneas of Troy[1]. The greatness of the Western neoclassicial period (democracy, free speech, property, capitalism!), in turn, is conditioned on the greatness and intellectual rightness of Greece and Rome. There's a reason why George Washington is apotheosized on the Capitol Rotunda, and it's not just because Brumidi thought it would look cool. If you can see why these kinds of observations and analysis might be interesting, you can get an inkling of why people find gender and other critical studies interesting: they don't exist to destroy Western culture, only to reconcile its lionizations with what we actually know. And, as it turns out, we don't know a whole lot other than what our progenitors want us to know. [1]: This, among many other reasons, is why Rome had its own reactionary anti-Hellenic scholars. Modern conservative groups frequently borrow their names. Parallels abound.
- eloff 6y ago
  You seem to have a post factual philosophy. Just because some things are made up in history does not mean the whole field is without rigor, nor does it make it equivalent to the counter factual nonsense coming out of gender studies. That you can find examples to the contrary does not prove the rule or make everything somehow equal.
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but those weren't supposed to be examples to the contrary (it's a matter of historical fact that people believed those myths, and acted based on those beliefs), nor do I have a "post factual" personal philosophy (I'm actually a Rawlsian and a moral realist, which is about as stodgy and non-postmodern as you can get by moral philosophy standards). The point with that whole digression was to provide a little window into the kinds of analyses that a critical philosopher might do: they're not interested in dismantling history as a whole; they're interested in carving at the joints between phenomena that are taken for granted as conjoined. I think that's important, even if it isn't the kind of research that I personally excel at (or even understand especially well).
    - eloff 6y ago
      Sorry, I didn't mean to go at you. It's just one of my buttons when people cherry pick something bad about Y and try to use that establish that X is therefore somehow equal or not worse. There are some people out there who even like to believe all humans are equal. As if they live in some alternate reality. I'm not implying anything about you by the way, just venting. Someone else in the comments here had the gall to say there are bad physics papers therefore gender studies is no less legitimate. Which is totally nonsensical as an argument. > they're interested in carving at the joints between phenomena that are taken for granted as conjoined On the surface I have no issue with that. I just think the field of gender studies in general is so toxic and full of garbage that anyone doing actual serious work in that field would do well to distance themselves from it.

by eloff 6y ago

woodruffw 6y ago

> Sure, but there's still a basis in facts where can corroborate accounts from different authors, even different sides in a war. yes it's subject to interpretation, and there's no one right answer. But you also can't just make stuff up and get people to take you seriously. There's some rigour to making and presenting your arguments. Very different to gender studies. Except that a lot of it is just made up! Both the Greeks and Romans were happy to make up foundational and battle stories to support their cultural lodestones; we don't really know much about how Rome was founded other than that it certainly wasn't Romulus and Remus. Even our best period sources (Dionysus of Halicarnassus and Livy) were (1) 800 years too late, and (2) under immense political pressure to "prove" (there's that word again) that the myths were real. And note: the greatness of Rome is conditioned on the greatness of their founding myth, which goes from Romulus and Remus to the great Aeneas of Troy[1]. The greatness of the Western neoclassicial period (democracy, free speech, property, capitalism!), in turn, is conditioned on the greatness and intellectual rightness of Greece and Rome. There's a reason why George Washington is apotheosized on the Capitol Rotunda, and it's not just because Brumidi thought it would look cool. If you can see why these kinds of observations and analysis might be interesting, you can get an inkling of why people find gender and other critical studies interesting: they don't exist to destroy Western culture, only to reconcile its lionizations with what we actually know. And, as it turns out, we don't know a whole lot other than what our progenitors want us to know. [1]: This, among many other reasons, is why Rome had its own reactionary anti-Hellenic scholars. Modern conservative groups frequently borrow their names. Parallels abound.

eloff 6y ago
You seem to have a post factual philosophy. Just because some things are made up in history does not mean the whole field is without rigor, nor does it make it equivalent to the counter factual nonsense coming out of gender studies. That you can find examples to the contrary does not prove the rule or make everything somehow equal.
- woodruffw 6y ago
  I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but those weren't supposed to be examples to the contrary (it's a matter of historical fact that people believed those myths, and acted based on those beliefs), nor do I have a "post factual" personal philosophy (I'm actually a Rawlsian and a moral realist, which is about as stodgy and non-postmodern as you can get by moral philosophy standards). The point with that whole digression was to provide a little window into the kinds of analyses that a critical philosopher might do: they're not interested in dismantling history as a whole; they're interested in carving at the joints between phenomena that are taken for granted as conjoined. I think that's important, even if it isn't the kind of research that I personally excel at (or even understand especially well).
  - eloff 6y ago
    Sorry, I didn't mean to go at you. It's just one of my buttons when people cherry pick something bad about Y and try to use that establish that X is therefore somehow equal or not worse. There are some people out there who even like to believe all humans are equal. As if they live in some alternate reality. I'm not implying anything about you by the way, just venting. Someone else in the comments here had the gall to say there are bad physics papers therefore gender studies is no less legitimate. Which is totally nonsensical as an argument. > they're interested in carving at the joints between phenomena that are taken for granted as conjoined On the surface I have no issue with that. I just think the field of gender studies in general is so toxic and full of garbage that anyone doing actual serious work in that field would do well to distance themselves from it.