Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carrikature and Paprika on certain things

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    I'm more or less on board with this. It leaves me with a major question, though. The historical information we have at our disposal is often limited in both quantity and quality. This limitation means we use what we have available to construct a worldview as best we can. How do we assess historical plausibility of information using a reconstructed worldview that rests on that same information? The gospels (and NT) are a prime example of where this would be an issue afaict.
    With respect to the plausiblity of Jesus, we can reconstruct the variegated Judaisms of the day without using the gospels. We can then look at the stories of Jesus which are set in a certain time within second-Temple Judaism. Both individually and composite, we can ask if this figure painted by the story is plausible within a world which we reconstruct from Josephus, the OT, scrolls at Qumram, Philo, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    I'm more or less on board with this. It leaves me with a major question, though. The historical information we have at our disposal is often limited in both quantity and quality. This limitation means we use what we have available to construct a worldview as best we can. How do we assess historical plausibility of information using a reconstructed worldview that rests on that same information? The gospels (and NT) are a prime example of where this would be an issue afaict.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    started a topic Carrikature and Paprika on certain things

    Carrikature and Paprika on certain things

    This thread is Carrikature and I to stop clogging up the SB. We intend, for now, to restrict posting here to the two of us.

    Carrik: from where we left off, I think now that I was too hasty to put the (possibly non-existent cart) before the horse to say that my method can lead to knowledge.

    Maybe this is a better way to explain it: if historical investigation is not going to be about 'mere events' but to understand the people acting in various events, I propose that understanding their motivations would be one key factor in such investigation. And people in various cultures generally have different ways of viewing the world, different values, different praxis. If we want to embark on this task we have to reconstruct what I would term as their 'worldview'. In principle it shoud be possible to do so from what I think are the four main components: the story, the praxis, the symbols, and the questions.

    If we can reconstruct the general aworldview, or better, if focusing on an individual, the individual's variation the worldview, we would be in a better position to understand how the person or group would act and why; we can more accurately answer the question of historical plausibility. Otherwise the great danger would be the unjustified projection of what we would consider plausible within our own worldview.

    For example, the actions of the kamikaze pilots of Japan in WWII would make little sense from a very individualistic, anti-nationalistic worldview, but would, I suggest, make very much sense from theirs.
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X