Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nisarg" data-source="post: 2119934" data-attributes="member: 19893">I don't think it would be "helpful" at all for you and me to trade name-droppings to show off how much we know, especially since that would leave other people in the dark.In general I think that the only academics who are bigger wankers than historiographers are people who spend time arguing about historiographers, and I don't think that there is a single dominant theory of historiography that has yet been able to construct an effective model by which to explain the WHOLE of history.Historiography and those who obsess over it, for those who don't know, is sort of like the Forge of the history world. Mostly people with way too much time on their hands and lacking the balls to do real history, so they prefer to just talk about it. Occasionally they produce something interesting, but they largely fail due to their obsessive need to apply their pet theory to the whole of history, when it usually barely applies to the specific area of history they are trained in.That said, I would not describe myself as a marxist historian, though I do acknowledge some of their basic concepts. I do believe that certain developments in a society have to be precluded by a foundation of other discoveries or resources, and will naturally lead to certain predictable consequences.But with that said, my favourite historiographer would have to be Arnold Toynbee. I agree with some of the points of his historical descendent, Sam Huntington, but not with the entirety of his thesis and the conclusions he draws from them.  I think Oswald Spengler is under-appreciated, largely because his work is marred by his own doing, but that his basic theory is worth examining.As for the guys you mentioned, Hyppolite is largely forgettable; Michel Foucault was a slimy little worm, a regrettable pervert who is responsible for the massive decadence in modern academia that will contribute to the collapse of western civilization, and Deleuze has some philosophically very interesting ideas that really belong more in a buddhist discussion group than in the actual work of history.Please note that the last three paragraphs are SOLELY included so that Wayside, who was clearly challenging me, couldn't accuse me of not knowing my historiography; I loathed having to include them in this forum, and no, Wayside, I will not continue to argue with you as to what you think of my choice in historians or philosophers.  I get paid to do that, and last time I checked you aren't paying me.Nisarg</blockquote>

Verification