3 ms·

WTF is this? I've never seen such a large swath of primary source material dismissed so glibly. We should take the origins of western Philosophy, Logic, and Mus

WTF is this? I've never seen such a large swath of primary source material dismissed so glibly. We should take the origins of western Philosophy, Logic, and Music Theory less than seriously because of some vague agenda? Me thinks the tinfoil is strong with this one. ''' The Roman empire had the technology of written language, and a lot of their records, written in Latin, survive today. Unfortunately those records are shrouded in many dense layers of propaganda: they’ve been selectively preserved and presented by academics over the millennia, to support whatever political, religious, or philosophical cause; and of course, many of them were spun to the political needs of the Romans who wrote them in the first place. As a consequence, most ancient history should should be taken with several grains of salt. '''

jobposter1234 12y ago
What about your selected quote do you disagree with? Those seem like relevant facts to understand the context that led to specific records being created, propagated, and saved through history. It sounds like a detailed version of "history is written by the winners".
cbd1984 12y ago
> Unfortunately those records are shrouded in many dense layers of propaganda: they’ve been selectively preserved and presented by academics over the millennia, to support whatever political, religious, or philosophical cause; and of course, many of them were spun to the political needs of the Romans who wrote them in the first place. As a consequence, most ancient history should should be taken with several grains of salt. As near as I can tell, this is what all competent historians will tell you. We know history is biased, and that what we have is fragmentary and not reflective of the vast majority of peoples' lives. That's why we supplement history, which is the study of the written record, with archaeology, which is the study of the non-written record, such as midden heaps and old homesteads and so on.

jobposter1234 12y ago

What about your selected quote do you disagree with? Those seem like relevant facts to understand the context that led to specific records being created, propagated, and saved through history. It sounds like a detailed version of "history is written by the winners".

cbd1984 12y ago

> Unfortunately those records are shrouded in many dense layers of propaganda: they’ve been selectively preserved and presented by academics over the millennia, to support whatever political, religious, or philosophical cause; and of course, many of them were spun to the political needs of the Romans who wrote them in the first place. As a consequence, most ancient history should should be taken with several grains of salt. As near as I can tell, this is what all competent historians will tell you. We know history is biased, and that what we have is fragmentary and not reflective of the vast majority of peoples' lives. That's why we supplement history, which is the study of the written record, with archaeology, which is the study of the non-written record, such as midden heaps and old homesteads and so on.