Re: Herodotos
- From: leuwarden@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 17 Dec 2005 23:33:33 -0800
Herman Rubin wrote:
> In article <1134808668.387243.80060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> <leuwarden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Andrew Dalby wrote:
> >> leuwarden@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> >> He's the Father of History, they say. Where better to begin?
>
> >I think that is a fallacy. If he is the father of history, he should be
> >studied by historians, just as, for example, the father of psychology
> >would have to be studied by psychologists, not by patients.
>
> Why? The "father of psychology" may or may not be of
> interest to psychologists. His works may or may not be
> studied.
I think I was wrong. However, to be fair, I think you are also wrong.
The history I had to do at school started with the Romans or the Greeks
plus a little prehistory. Hence, the main characters in the story
would be the Gallier and the Franken and the Kelten, Dorier, Numantia,
El-Argar, Lyder, Megalithen (but aren't those just stones?),
Mesopotamien, Capsien, Malakka-Halbinsel and so on. As you can see,
just to give you an idea I had to take out a school book because
without it I would not be able to recall those traumatic names: none
meant anything at all.
For most people history ought to be told backwards, starting with what
is there now and explaining what there was there before.
This was the reason why I cringed at the idea of starting with
Herodotos. But, as is often the case, I did not see that (personal
reason) clearly and therefore drummed up a (more objective) substitute
argument, which I suspected would not hold water.
Now your point:
You said "The "father of psychology" may or may not be of
interest to psychologists. His works may or may not be
studied."
In psychology and in the other disciplines that are word-based there is
a slow development of terms that are verbal constructs and cannot be
defined in a lasting way, because the same term will not be understood
the same way by two different individuals. For this reason I can't see
how anybody would study psychology without trying to find out where the
terminology came from.
>
> There is no need for chemists to study the "father of
> chemistry", or any other such "ancestor".
That could be. Its terms are based on facts (experiments) and figures.
> It seems that
> Viete was the one who established a sufficiently versatile
> algebraic notation that modern mathematics could get going,
> but until recently this was almost unknown. Who did it is
> of essentially no importance; that it was done is what is
> important.
That could be so, too. Mathematics are not word based, either. They are
somehow self sufficient, an artifice, all self-contained.
" 2 + 3 = 5 " is not similar to "Psyche = The mind functioning as the
center of thought, emotion, and behavior and consciously or
unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body's responses to the social
and physical environment."
(one is devine and the other is an abject mess, a depraved drivel,
see?)
>
> There are works which give historical information before
> Herodotus, but he was the first to attempt to make the
> history an accurate presentation. This is why he should
> be studied.
>
> --
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Herodotos
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: Herodotos
- References:
- Re: Is there an optimal sequence for language acquisition?
- From: leuwarden
- Re: Is there an optimal sequence for language acquisition?
- From: Lee Sau Dan
- Re: Herodotos
- From: leuwarden
- Re: Herodotos
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: Is there an optimal sequence for language acquisition?
- Prev by Date: Re: More Finnish peculiarities
- Next by Date: Re: Herodotos
- Previous by thread: Re: Herodotos
- Next by thread: Re: Herodotos
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
