tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26129962.post8975656420663934561..comments2023-05-17T13:37:24.372+01:00Comments on SalvationsSongs: awkward friendsMarcus Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06603530412980948533noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26129962.post-55804496906309306572012-08-31T04:18:39.600+01:002012-08-31T04:18:39.600+01:00In case you've heard of the lamentable affair ...In case you've heard of the lamentable affair over the peremptory sacking and then re-hiring of the University of Virginia president, the departments bandied about as "economically inutile" and "not profitable" which some wanted to close were Classics and German!<br /><br />I replied to a few that in Oxford, Classics was the classic "captains of industry" subject, even shouldering PPE.<br /><br />You could also note that medieval history (economic, Far East) was Prince Hiro's subject.<br /><br /><br /><br />KWReganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09792573098380066005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26129962.post-37078794344572598812012-08-30T12:36:31.894+01:002012-08-30T12:36:31.894+01:00I think you're right. I also think, possibly b...I think you're right. I also think, possibly because I seem to interpret everything as concepts, one can (and should) take the argument further. History is important because it gives a sense of collective identity, who were are as a people, which I think you touched upon ("Long-dead Persians...no one wins.") By knowing and defending what truly happened, freedom is preserved and the history cannot be hijacked by tyrants looking to legitimise their own position.<br /><br />I would like to argue from the same point that history gives us a collective identity, but take it in a different direction. I want to say all knowledge from whatever discipline must be interpreted historically, because without an historical context, the argument of the original source is distorted. When that distorted argument is taught, the collective identity of those receiving it is distorted too.<br /><br />I'll use an example. During my MA, I had to take a module with philosophy students (nasty in itself!). You could tell who was an historian and who was a philosopher from their arguments. The philosophers had no idea why the texts we were studying had been written. Not a clue. They were simply ignorant of the historical context. If I were a studying John Milton's political philosophy without an understanding of the nation state, Puritan culture, the civil war, etc. I would still be able to argue Milton was a republican, a poet and didn't like episcopal polity, but I wouldn't be able to say why. I would be able to argue that Milton didn't like tyrants or kings and the people had a right to depose them (See The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates), but I wouldn't know the reason why he thought this. I would know he was an advocate of divorce on the grounds of mutual incompatibility (See The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce), but I would assume he thought this because he was a liberal republican. Rights are what liberal republicans are concerned with.<br /><br />No. Sadly, that's wrong. Milton was a liberal republican (liberal by the standards of his contemporaries), but that's not what formed his views. Ideas cannot spontaneously arise out of a vacuum. There needs to be a context. The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates was written two weeks after King Charles I's execution, in order to justify the regicide to the Presbyterian party, who thought the Rump and tribunal had gone too far. That's why Presbyterian, Calvinist and Scottish sources are used in the text and the Calvinist understanding of the right to resist is subverted. That's why he is so concerned with deposing tyrants. The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce was published a year after Milton's wife left him. The link is so obvious it doesn't need an explanation.<br /><br />Every philosophy student in that room ignorant of those facts, giving them an inaccurate understanding of the argument. How that is possible at MA level, I don't know. The only way to prevent this distortion is an awareness of the context. Oh my goodness, I'm going to need a bigger soap box.Matthew J Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06374188018249407482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26129962.post-17797679665088598572012-08-29T21:07:09.660+01:002012-08-29T21:07:09.660+01:00Excellent point. I must confess that I had never ...Excellent point. I must confess that I had never thought about it that way so my education (esoteric or otherwise) is more complete now.<br /><br />Here in the US, the rewriting of history both recent and more distant is in full flow in the run-up to the election. In such a polarised political environment this does nothing to sway anyone because everyone listens to the commentators that they agree with. The effect is rather to sustain and nourish the polarisation because everyone is left thinking worse and worse of those on the 'other side'. Sigh.the_exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08317567327641097329noreply@blogger.com