metrodorus wrote:If you don't like the GREX, try SCHOLA.
It has advantages: it is more like facebook, it is web-based, not on some arcane list-serve, and it has a younger age profile. Each user gets their own cyberdiarium. It also had video uploading, a music player with selections of catullus etc, and photo libraries.
Avitus wrote:Yes, the people you will meet through the Grex Latiné Loquentium will be overwhelmingly conservative and bigoted, because the Latin language was not allowed to develop normally for the last couple of centuries as it had for a couple of millennia until then and it therefore attracts, befits and favours the expression of those above all who still embrace the Weltanschauung of the periods of history when it flourished, be that Roman times, Christian times or Humanistic times, rather than that of those who take account of the Enlightenment, Modernity and so-called Postmodernity as well.
It does not mean that those people are worthless, not more and in all likelihood not less than the millenary Latin culture they personify. As you indicate, they are indubitably intelligent and display sophisticated argumentation in a wide range of relevant and interesting subject matters. Engaging with them can only be enriching.
Avitus wrote:Latinity as a culture is going to struggle and indeed put a fight to digest the cultural developments of the last couple of centuries. Kept at bay since the times of the French Revolution, it has not been given the chance to take account of Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, even Saussure, or Adorno, Baudrillard, Derrida, Heidegger or Lacan any more than many other contemporary cultures that have likewise been left aside, undevelopped and unaffected by generalised progress.
ptolemyauletes wrote:some very good points.
Finally, if any of you would really like to improve their perennial Latin skills, there is no more efficient way known to man for that than the course written by Desessard in 1966 as a covered with loads of extra material at my very own «Schola Latina Universalis», which you will easily find through Google.
Y'all is gettin' inta politickin'. That's almost always bad.
[deleted about thirty minutes of just-typed responses to folks on this thread]
I have nothing to say that probably wouldn't annoy or piss off people on both sides of this argument.
ptolemyauletes wrote:For the third time now, I have stated from the beginning that my statements are a generalistion, and based upon my own experiences.
cdm2003 wrote:For one, you're casting all of Classical academics in a negative light because of your own experiences.
What is so bewildering about this popular notion, however, is how little it reflects the daily practice of the classics by professional scholars. You can find right-wing classicists, of course, but it is miles easier to come across classicists whose work contributes to ideas on the left. You might think of the pioneering work of feminist classicists, which has been important since the birth of the women’s movement and beyond (it was Jane Harrison who quoted Terence in support of the suffragists). Meanwhile, research on Greek homosexuality continues to make an important contribution to ideas within the gay rights movement. Numberless ideas from the ancient world - from Sparta to Athens’ radical democracy - have been reeled in by the left. Gilbert Murray, perhaps the greatest British classicist and public intellectual, was Liberal, not Conservative in his politics. Today, thoughtful work abounds by scholars, such as Joy Connolly’s on Cicero, with its underlying critique of US society under the Republicans.
cdm2003 wrote:When I speak of historical relativism, I'm stating that you cannot use the sort of political classifications of today to characterize people or systems of yesterday.
cdm2003 wrote:The issue of slavery, for instance, makes Rome an institution the likes of which we simply have no words. To what, today, can we compare Crassus' act of crucifying the rebellious slaves under Spartacus along the roads to Rome? What do you call a state that elevates a Nero and allows him to make torches in his Domus Aurea out of Christians? One would be hard pressed to find a modern example of that which would completely encompass to amount of cruelty involved.
ptolemyauletes wrote:But how draining it is to have to repeat these arguments over and over again - if you want to know why I teach it, find out a bit about it for yourself!
But how draining it is to have to repeat these arguments over and over again - if you want to know why I teach it, find out a bit about it for yourself!
I hope you weren't repeating them for my sake. You didn't have to. If you were, you misunderstand. I was criticizing in small part the article, not the study of classics. I thought Higgin's article was quite thin as a defence, that's all. To be fair, 'though, that wasn't its goal.
In my opinion, much of that can be attributed to technology and the fact that our population has grown extensively. Give guns and planes to the Romans, give nukes and tanks to the Crusaders and Muslims and I suspect that the death tolls would be in proportion to ours. Maybe even worse. There's a limit to how many people you can slaughter in a day with a sword. :XAnd I suspect that there have been more wanton and obscene crimes against humanity licensed by states in the previous century than in any earlier one. Modern illegal wars in this young century aren't very nice in terms of the large number of fatalities and suffering that result.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Steven Avery and 82 guests