[Unperson-K]

The tradition of Herodotus, Thucidides, Plutarch and the whole legacy of historical methodology, have one objective, and are driven by one motive, and their success on it is irrelevant:

"to show wie es eigentlich gewesen ist".

This is remarkably naive. It may be true that most historians throughout time have had the goal of telling it like it really was. But the fact that they had this motive is not very interesting. A desire to show 'wie es eigentlich gewen ist' does not amount to being able to do so. Language is not a mirror which reflects the world: it is oblique, artificial and often ideological. In the very act of using language we loose the ability to depict 'truth' (if we ever had it or indeed if there is such a thing as 'truth').

Then there is the problem of narrative. Narrative in its very structure conveys a morality, a particular message:

Hayden White: The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (p.14)

Narrativity, certainly in factual storytelling and probably in fictional storytelling as well, is intimately related to, if not a function of, the impulse to moralise reality, that is to identify it with the social system that it is the source of any morality that we can imagine

Because:

ibid. p.16

The capacity to envision a set of events as belonging to the same order of meaning [the narrative] requires some metaphysical principle by which to translate difference into similarity. In other words, it requires a 'subject' common to all of the referents of the various sentences that register events as having occurred.

The very inclusion of the event into the narrative is done on the basis of a subject chosen by the historian in advance as his object of study. The choice of subject will invariably be ideological. They will make the choice because they have something they want to say on it or because they think it will make an interesting story or because they want to sell lots of books in order to make money. And that choice of subject will inform the choice of event chosen to go into the narrative. You have to choose your events of course: it would simply be impossible to include every single event happening around you. This is the problem that also fundamentally undermines the premise of the realist novel: no narrative depiction can capture the infinite complexity of the world around us. If we attempted to do so, it would become a boring list of objects and even then it would still not necessarily correspond with the world as it really is because of the problem of language. A world view is always implicit (and sometimes explicit) in any attempt to depict history as it really is.

I think I am simply repeating galactus and so I will not go any further. But I would emphasise that history and literature are not opposites: they are almost one and the same. The only difference in historiography is that you are compelled to a certain extent to report on documents from the archive (the source of virtually all our historical knowledge). Historical facts are usually just the results of intertextuality.

[noemon]

This is remarkably naive. It may be true that most historians throughout time have had the goal of telling it like it really was. But the fact that they had this motive is not very interesting. A desire to show 'wie es eigentlich gewen ist' does not amount to being able to do so. Language is not a mirror which reflects the world: it is oblique, artificial and often ideological. In the very act of using language we loose the ability to depict 'truth' (if we ever had it or indeed if there is such a thing as 'truth').

Then there is the problem of narrative. Narrative in its very structure conveys a morality, a particular message:

Hayden White: The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (p.14)

Remarkably naive is your inability to understand the contention of the dialogue.

Irrelevant, as already stated.

I think I am simply repeating galactus and so I will not go any further.

Ofc, you are parroting Galactus, in a point that has already been replied, and in a point which i have already illustarted myself, thinking that by creating a vacuum, you would probably score a point on which i have been clear from the very start:

The idea to write it exactly as it is, is spelled out by Thucidides himself in his Preface, and praised for exactly that by later Greek authors, as well. To convey morals for the Greek was to be through myth, and history as well, only and if applicable, but primarily myth. "History" on the other hand for the Greeks is exactly that narration of what is, seems to be or appears to be FACT, and hence its name as well. History is the equivalent of journalism in Ancient Greek society. This is the Ancient Greek difference between myth and history; myth, drama, comedy and song are allowed to succumb to the moral on the expense of fact, while history is not allowed to

And explained by Murray as well, in the quote as brought by myself in the first post of this dialogue:

He never reached the end. It is characteristic both of the man and of a certain side of Athenian culture, that he turned away from his main task of narrative to develop the style of his work as pure literature. Instead of finishing the chronicle of the war, he worked over his reports of the arguments people had used, or the policies various parties had followed, into elaborate and direct speeches. Prose style at the time had its highest development in the form of rhetoric; and that turn of mind, always characteristic of Greece, which delighted in understanding both sides of a question, and would not rest till it knew every seeming wrongdoer's apology, was especially strong. The speeches are Thucydides's highest literary efforts. In some cases they seem to be historical in substance, and even to a certain extent in phrasing; the letter of Nikias has the look of reality (vii. 11 ff.), and perhaps also the speech of Diodotus (iii. 42). Sometimes the speech is historical, but the occasion is changed. The great Funeral Oration of Pericles was made after his campaign at Samos;6 he may have made one also in the first year of the war, when there were perhaps hardly fifty Athenians to bury. More probably Thucydides has transferred the great speech to a time when he could use it in his history.7 Sometimes the speakers are vaguely given in the plural-'the Corinthians said'--that is, the political situation is put in the form of a speech or speeches showing vividly the way in which different parties conceived it. A notable instance is the imaginary dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians, showing dramatically and with a deep, though perhaps over-coloured, characterisation the attitude of mind in which the war-party at Athens then faced their problems.

This is at first sight an odd innovation to be introduced by the great realist in history. He warns us frankly, however. It was hard for him or his informants to remember exactly what the various speakers had said. He has therefore given the speeches which he thought the situation demanded, keeping as close as might be to the actual words used (1.22). It is a hazy description. He himself would not have liked it in Herodotus; and the practice was a fatal legacy to two thousand years of history-writing after him. But in his own case we have seen why he did it, and there is little doubt that he has done it with extraordinary effect. There is perhaps nothing in literature like his power of half personifying a nation and lighting up the big lines of its character. The most obvious cases are actual descriptions, such as the contrast between Athens and Sparta drawn by the Corinthians in I., or the picture of Athens by Pericles in II.; but there is dramatic personation as well, and one feels the nationality of various anonymous speakers as one feels the personal character of Nikias or Sthenelaïdas or Alcibiades. It would be hard to find a clearer or more convincing account of conflicting policies than that given in the speeches at the beginning of the war

There is no disagreement. There is mere empty rhetoric.

If you wish to discuss the Philosophy of History, then be my guest in another thread, the contention here has nothing to do with your argument or with Galactus's arguments:

As i already stated:

Your argument is a general argument on the Philosophy of History, which applies to this modern day history as well, but that is not the object of your revisionism. The object of your revisionism is to break the link between the Ancient Historical tradition and methodology of the Greeks with the modern one; you write "is an idea that became the norm much later", using an argument on the general premise of the Philosophy of History, that applies to both cases equally.

The contention here is this one:

The idea that one should search sources and write down history 'objectivly', as it was, is an idea that became the norm much later.

This is the initial contention, not the Philosophy of History. The Historical methodology of sourcing, referencing, citing, and reporting, started with Herodotus, and became refined by Thucidides. This is the tradition followed by all the rest, a tradition which has been embellished to encompass cultural history and various other fields, built on this model of historical methodology and nothing has changed on the basis of methodology applied by Thucidides, "later" or "further later" on the basic premise of Historiography. Your argument applies to then, later than then, all the way up to today and hence the fact that it is irrelevant.

[Unperson-K]

noemon

The Historical methodology of sourcing, referencing, citing, and reporting,

Both the first and the last items in your summary of historical methodology are distinctly philosophical and therefore any discussion of them is bound to involve some statements regarding the philosophy of history. To discuss methodology is to discuss philosophy. To make some distinction is to introduce a false dichotomy. So it is quite relevant to introduce some kind of philosophical discussion here.

Not to mention the fact that referencing and citing are more or less the same thing in historical methodology. But poor sentence construction is your problem, not mine.

started with Herodotus, and became refined by Thucidides

Would you like a medal for stating that Herodotus is the father of history? I can imagine it now: engraved upon it will be the refrain 'Mr. Pointing-Out-The-Bloody-Obvious 2008'.

If you wish to discuss the Philosophy of History, then be my guest in another thread, the contention here has nothing to do with your argument or with Galactus's arguments:

This is not the case. The discussion between yourself and Galactus has revolved entirely around the idea of the philosophy of history since it began: your initial rejection was of the idea that the Greek historians were story-tellers (the comparison was with Tolkien). Which of course they were. As are all historians. As are journalists too.

You in fact emphasised this sentence:

The idea that one should search sources and write down history 'objectivly', as it was, is an idea that became the norm much later.

as the source of your objection only within your last reply to galactus, not before. Why is simple: his arguments had successfully demolished any reasonable opposition you had to offer and so you decided to make this into a hissy fit, something you are inclined to do the moment that anyone casts even the slightest aspersions on the glory of your long-dead Hellenic predecessors. And it is this hissy fit that has no place on this thread or elsewhere on this forum.

[noemon]

Both the first and the last items in your summary of historical methodology are distinctly philosophical and therefore any discussion of them is bound to involve some statements regarding the philosophy of history. To discuss methodology is to discuss philosophy. To make some distinction is to introduce a false dichotomy. So it is quite relevant to introduce some kind of philosophical discussion here.

Not to mention the fact that referencing and citing are more or less the same thing in historical methodology. But poor sentence construction is your problem, not mine.

Further blah blah irrelevant to the quote you are citing. And that the methodology discussion requires philosophy is once again irrelevant, because the contention is on methodological inception chronology, not on this particular philosophical aspect of it.

Would you like a medal for stating that Herodotus is the father of history? I can imagine it now: engraved upon it will be the refrain 'Mr. Pointing-Out-The-Bloody-Obvious 2008'.

Trolling.

as the source of your objection only within your last reply to galactus, not before. Why is simple: his arguments had successfully demolished any reasonable opposition you had to offer and so you decided to make this into a hissy fit, something you are inclined to do the moment that anyone casts even the slightest aspersions on the glory of your long-dead Hellenic predecessors. And it is this hissy fit that has no place on this thread or elsewhere on this forum.

No, re-read the discussion, the fact that the contention was not apparent to you, because neither myself neither Galactus made it explicit, does not mean that it was not there.

Also, Galactus did not demolish anything with his paradigm, because from the very first post the paradigm was accepted as true.

And finally, just because most members are hypocritical enough to raise and discuss such cultural chauvinist subjects, while at the same time trying their best not to make them explicit on the mob for coolness points, does not justify the provocation and cannot condemn the "re-action", especially when the "re-action" has made herself frankly explicitly clear, time and time again.

[galactus]

What you are attempting basically is the classic Galactus legacy of underminning the importance of the major Greek contributions in civilization(such as the innovation of the concept of Historical methodology). You are attempting to revise the fact that History

I have no intention of doing such at all. If anything, I think the way history was written before the positivist paradigm was the way history ought to be written.

Your argument on the Philosophy of History in other words, fails to illustrate your initial point, and it is a mere rhetorical device to catch the minds of some adherents of anti-Hellenic revisionism inside the forum. Ill-informed and ill-formed.

Yes, I am anti-hellenic. In my opinion greek culture is poop.

The tradition of Herodotus, Thucidides, Plutarch and the whole legacy of historical methodology, have one objective, and are driven by one motive, and their success on it is irrelevant:

"to show wie es eigentlich gewesen ist".

The point is that no history is done in this way. Thucidides might state that he wants to just record the facts, but he also betrays himself since he thinks that the facts will be useful in interpreting the future. I.e. the facts of the war are not historically bound, but serve as things which might inform us of how politics work.

"The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time."

There can be no neutral telling of the past, and Thucidides probably is not interested in that anyhow. He is interested in something that might help us in the present.

And it did not become the norm much later, the norm begun exactly there(with Herodotus) and continued unchanged into the Roman/Byzantine times. If you mean that it became the norm in regards to other people much later, then you are probably correct.

The idea that history should have no purpose, but should just be the neutral record of 'stuff', is an anachronistic idea to apply to the greeks. Greek history always had a purpose, and always purported to show something about some ahistorical fact.

The concept I am referring to with "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" is(as you should know) a reference to von Ranke. The previous parts of the sentence in which the quote appears also mentions specifically that it is not the historians obligation to 'instruct ones contemporaries', this is in opposition to Thucidides who obviously writes history for that purpose. So the idea that history should be to record wie es eigentlich gewesen ist is not something that was the norm during this period. The Greeks were not positivists.

[noemon]

I have no intention of doing such at all. If anything, I think the way history was written before the positivist paradigm was the way history ought to be written.

Your rejection of the positivist position, does not mean that you are not denying the inception of the positivist approach by the Greeks.

There can be no neutral telling of the past, and Thucidides probably is not interested in that anyhow. He is interested in something that might help us in the present.

Motive is not equivalent to evidence.

The concept I am referring to with "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" is(as you should know) a reference to von Ranke. The previous parts of the sentence in which the quote appears also mentions specifically that it is not the historians obligation to 'instruct ones contemporaries', this is in opposition to Thucidides who obviously writes history for that purpose. So the idea that history should be to record wie es eigentlich gewesen ist is not something that was the norm during this period. The Greeks were not positivists.

False, Ranke is simply applying Thucididean methodology on modern day source interface.

Unless, you are willing to argue that Ranke is excluded from what we agreed above: that the metaphysical concept of factuality of opinion is dismissed.

[Ombrageux]

You know, the Peloponnesian War is something that IR students everywhere have to study at the basic level. It is odd how little distance IR in general has to this war. One has to keep in mind that these sort of historical wars are as much fiction as Tolkien as far as anybody except archeologists are concerned.

I think this is an indication of the empirical bankruptcy of a lot the classical IR theory.

[Doomhammer]

I think this is an indication of the empirical bankruptcy of a lot the classical IR theory.

Speaking of which, my professor wants me to include even more theories. I have to fucking study for exams too! Sigh.

She says: "Talk more about the polarity in the system and how these could have lead to war. Here, read this article."


Sigh.



I stand by my angry rant against the IR discipline several posts ago.

[galactus]

Your rejection of the positivist position, does not mean that you are not denying the inception of the positivist approach by the Greeks.

False, Ranke is simply applying Thucididean methodology on modern day source interface.

What has this got to do with anything? I don't care if you have these loony ideas that the Greek civilization invented everything, it isn't the topic of the discussion.

I didn't understand anything else that you said in your post, so I am only replying to this part.

[noemon]

What has this got to do with anything? I don't care if you have these loony ideas that the Greek civilization invented everything, it isn't the topic of the discussion.

It has to do with your misapprehension of Ranke and your misapprehension of Thucidides, and with your personal issues towards Greek civilization.

Ranke said:"not the duty to judge the past, nor to instruct one's contemporaries with an eye to the future, but rather merely to show how it actually was"

And because he says that the "eye to the future" should not be in ones mind while writing the story, it does not mean, that it goes so, if you are willing to argue this and defend his obvious illusion, then prove this as i told you above:

Unless, you are willing to argue that Ranke is excluded from what we agreed above: that the metaphysical concept of factuality of opinion is dismissed.

Thucidides said:

"The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time."

Thucidides's motive is to leave behind an exact record(exactly as it was) ofc for future reference, not future "instruction", the petty antithesis you are trying to create, in order to appease your complexes towards the Greeks, hangs from such a thin thread, that it is even ridiculous to even bother. "Reference" is inherently "instructive", and one should notify Ranke the same.

And, the rest of my post above is very clear for you to comprehend, and i dont see it fitting to rewrite my words. They are spot on as they are.

[peter_co]

She says: "Talk more about the polarity in the system and how these could have lead to war. Here, read this article."

Was it Gilpin's "Theory of Hegemonic War" by any chance? Because if you want to talk about how the polarity of the system caused the war, that's pretty much the Holy Grail for that idea as far as IR scholarship goes.

[Doomhammer]

No no. It was merely a humble article on polarity and alliance blocs. I thought about mentioning hegemonic war theory (and even power transition theory). In the end, I decided that it was too much nonsense.

I used Jervis (perception) and Walt (balance of threat).

Anyway, I am done done with it. Submitted it. I never wanna hear anymore "THISSS ISS SPARTAAAA" nonsense. NEVER!

[Doomhammer]

Btw, I got a good score on this. I thank everyone who posted in this thread for their comments. You've all been tremendously helpful. Thank you!