the historicity of history, part 2
the historicity of history, part 2
5 generations ago, there was no rigorous science. Just 20 generations ago, the written word could only be copied by hand. Only 100 generations ago, there were no historians. More than 250 generations ago, there is basically no record of what any particular human thought, said, or did.
-
commonsense
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: the historicity of history, part 2
Your post is valid, but your subject line incites my ire over pseudo-words.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:45 pm 5 generations ago, there was no rigorous science. Just 20 generations ago, the written word could only be copied by hand. Only 100 generations ago, there were no historians. More than 250 generations ago, there is basically no record of what any particular human thought, said, or did.
To wit, does “historicity” mean the same thing as “historic ness”?
Can you find either of these pseudo-words in the M/W dictionary? Or must you construct them out of faux academic combinations of roots and suffices? Do you do this to make an insane expression appear to be intelligent?
Isn’t the subject an expression of the historical nature of history? How does that differ from, say, the biographical nature of biography or the musical nature of music or the scientific nature of science or the architectural nature of architecture or the culinary nature of the culinary arts?
There. I’ve vented and my blood pressure can return to normal now.
At this point you may respond with a simple LOL emoji or with a boring defense of a distinction to be made by sane humans who wish to be esoteric (or to have attained the attribute of esotericity). (Never mind that “esotericism” already exists.)
Re: the historicity of history, part 2
[quote=commonsense post_id=482101 time=1606586688 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=481594 time=1606337128 user_id=15238]
5 generations ago, there was no rigorous science. Just 20 generations ago, the written word could only be copied by hand. Only 100 generations ago, there were no historians. More than 250 generations ago, there is basically no record of what any particular human thought, said, or did.
[/quote]
Your post is valid, but your subject line incites my ire over pseudo-words.
To wit, does “historicity” mean the same thing as “historic ness”?
Can you find either of these pseudo-words in the M/W dictionary? Or must you construct them out of faux academic combinations of roots and suffices? Do you do this to make an insane expression appear to be intelligent?
Isn’t the subject an expression of the historical nature of history? How does that differ from, say, the biographical nature of biography or the musical nature of music or the scientific nature of science or the architectural nature of architecture or the culinary nature of the culinary arts?
There. I’ve vented and my blood pressure can return to normal now.
At this point you may respond with a simple LOL emoji or with a boring defense of a distinction to be made by sane humans who wish to be esoteric (or to have attained the attribute of esotericity). (Never mind that “esotericism” already exists.)
[/quote]
Historicity is the factual account of what happened - one of those recent developments, to distinguish it from history as a whole which is more about telling explanatory stories than accuracy. It's a real word that does real work. :P
[quote=Advocate post_id=481594 time=1606337128 user_id=15238]
5 generations ago, there was no rigorous science. Just 20 generations ago, the written word could only be copied by hand. Only 100 generations ago, there were no historians. More than 250 generations ago, there is basically no record of what any particular human thought, said, or did.
[/quote]
Your post is valid, but your subject line incites my ire over pseudo-words.
To wit, does “historicity” mean the same thing as “historic ness”?
Can you find either of these pseudo-words in the M/W dictionary? Or must you construct them out of faux academic combinations of roots and suffices? Do you do this to make an insane expression appear to be intelligent?
Isn’t the subject an expression of the historical nature of history? How does that differ from, say, the biographical nature of biography or the musical nature of music or the scientific nature of science or the architectural nature of architecture or the culinary nature of the culinary arts?
There. I’ve vented and my blood pressure can return to normal now.
At this point you may respond with a simple LOL emoji or with a boring defense of a distinction to be made by sane humans who wish to be esoteric (or to have attained the attribute of esotericity). (Never mind that “esotericism” already exists.)
[/quote]
Historicity is the factual account of what happened - one of those recent developments, to distinguish it from history as a whole which is more about telling explanatory stories than accuracy. It's a real word that does real work. :P