Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tadashi wrote:The concept is called yamato nadeshiko.

Belldandy has some criticism as a feminine character.

And as to the concept, look at how Japan is doing on a social level. While I'm using a fallacy, I still don't particularly want any of their concepts.

@ Kovnik
Right now I'm aiming at a girl with purple hair. Should be a...fun time. Fun time indeed.

xole wrote:

Tadashi wrote:The concept is called yamato nadeshiko.

Belldandy has some criticism as a feminine character.

I know...but I don't care. That's my ideal, and one of the few I will not compromise on. Even if the price is being alone for the rest of my life.

Tadashi wrote:
You think I don't do the last one? But I will not commit to nothing less than the ideal - which does not exist. As I said, better alone than broken.

I'll give you one thing, you give Nietzsche a run for his money in terms of angst.

dogma wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
You think I don't do the last one? But I will not commit to nothing less than the ideal - which does not exist. As I said, better alone than broken.

I'll give you one thing, you give Nietzsche a run for his money in terms of angst.

The Ubermensch is an ideal state, and one I dearly seek to be.

xole wrote:
@ Kovnik
Right now I'm aiming at a girl with purple hair. Should be a...fun time. Fun time indeed.

You have her in sights, or is it just a requirement like ''the next one will have purple hair''. Cuz that would be a rather rare commodity.

One of my favourite one is girls who dress medieval. Something about doing a girl in a princess dress... That's a rare one too.

He was paying for his room and board.

Who was paying for room and board?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

xole wrote:
@ Kovnik
Right now I'm aiming at a girl with purple hair. Should be a...fun time. Fun time indeed.

You have her in sights, or is it just a requirement like ''the next one will have purple hair''. Cuz that would be a rather rare commodity.

One of my favourite one is girls who dress medieval. Something about doing a girl in a princess dress... That's a rare one too.

In sights. Very rare indeed. I'm not actually that picky, but she caught my eye.

xole wrote:
In sights. Very rare indeed. I'm not actually that picky, but she caught my eye.

Wish you the best luck in your hunt then! Yeah, that'd be fun

Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians

THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.

Melissia wrote:

Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians

THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.

I would ask you to quantify precisely what you are considering as 'history', under that particular objection.

Ketara wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians

THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.

I would ask you to quantify precisely what you are considering as 'history', under that particular objection.

Oral traditions...specifically those maintained by indigenous peoples and such.

Ketara wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians

THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.

I would ask you to quantify precisely what you are considering as 'history', under that particular objection.

Would you consider the origin of the universe history? The origin of a galaxy, or a star? Of our planet? Of life?

I admit that for the most part, I'm mostly unconcerned with written history unless it directly relates to the subject at hand-- although historical fiction can be quite fun to read, see RotTK. I find the "history" of the natural world to be fascinating (as long as I can study it from behind many protective layers of technology ).

Melissia wrote: I find the "history" of the natural world to be fascinating (as long as I can study it from behind many protective layers of technology ).

Or you can just go to a museum.

I'd rather attend lectures by Neil Degrasse Tyson or Brian Edward Cox than go to the average museum.

Melissia wrote:I'd rather attend lectures by Neil Degrasse Tyson or Brian Edward Cox than go to the average museum.

Even the Smithsonian or the Louvre (art can arguably be considered as a form of history in itself) or any other famous museum in the world?

For the most part, yes.

The opportunity to ask questions directly to a researcher at cutting edge of their field is something I would not want to pass up.

Melissia wrote:

The opportunity to ask questions directly to a researcher at cutting edge of their field is something I would not want to pass up.

Well, I can't argue with that.

Melissia wrote:THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.

Well that's why its called written history. You know. Ignoring that historians regularly engage in the study and development of histories for times before written history. Problem though is that the majority of research concerning pre-history is undertaken not by historians and more by other fields; Anthropology, Paleontology, Archeology, etc. People in those fields of course work with historians regularly, but there's a reason the distinction is there for written history vs prehistory. The skills sets needed change when writing systems are involved.

Melissia wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Ketara wrote:History is a creation of historians

THe assumption that the only form of history that matters is written history seems to be rather dismally missing the overwhelming majority of history.

I would ask you to quantify precisely what you are considering as 'history', under that particular objection.

Would you consider the origin of the universe history? The origin of a galaxy, or a star? Of our planet? Of life?

I admit that for the most part, I'm mostly unconcerned with written history unless it directly relates to the subject at hand-- although historical fiction can be quite fun to read, see RotTK. I find the "history" of the natural world to be fascinating (as long as I can study it from behind many protective layers of technology ).

The origin of the Universe was a past event, not history. The same goes for the origins of life and planets. History is something manufactured by mankind. It cannot exist separately from it.

Unless of course, you were referring to a scientist attempting to chart the origins of the Universe?

Ketara wrote:The origin of the Universe was a past event, not history.

I find that distinction arbitrary and nonsensical. Claiming that human history is the only thing that can be called history is far too homocentrist for me.

Melissia wrote:I find that distinction arbitrary and nonsensical. Claiming that human history is the only thing that can be called history is far too homocentrist for me.

Ignoring that history exactly refers to human history in its proper context. It's been highly generalized by the public and by other fields but within history, humanity and it's past is still the point (there's not much of a reason for historians to go beyond that). Prehistory is covered by other fields of research which the few historians only really involving themselves in the earliest of human or prehuman societies.

It's not homocentrist. It's what the word means academically. Shuman and I went at it in another thread a month or so back. What common folk think of as history is very different from what historians are actually doing.

Melissia wrote:

Ketara wrote:The origin of the Universe was a past event, not history.

I find that distinction arbitrary and nonsensical. Claiming that human history is the only thing that can be called history is far too homocentrist for me.

I would agree...if you want to focus on Human History, then do so. But the universe (and many other things besides) has a history of its own, and one we barely (if even barely) have begun to know. Hell, even Human History is general - there are so many divisions among us, that Human History can be divided into several fields and areas.

Ketara wrote:

The origin of the Universe was a past event, not history. The same goes for the origins of life and planets. History is something manufactured by mankind. It cannot exist separately from it.

Why do you insist so much on the philosophical definition of history when the english definition is the one that is generally accepted by everyone else?

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:I find that distinction arbitrary and nonsensical. Claiming that human history is the only thing that can be called history is far too homocentrist for me.

Ignoring that history exactly refers to human history in its proper context. It's been highly generalized by the public and by other fields but within history, humanity and it's past is still the point (there's not much of a reason for historians to go beyond that). Prehistory is covered by other fields of research which the few historians only really involving themselves in the earliest of human or prehuman societies.

It's not homocentrist. It's what the word means academically. Shuman and I went at it in another thread a month or so back. What common folk think of as history is very different from what historians are actually doing.

This is exactly the reason that there is such a thing as pre-history, yet no such thing as a time before the universe (if you believe that time started with the universe, as many people both theist and atheist do).

Tadashi wrote:Why do you insist so much on the philosophical definition of history when the english definition is the one that is generally accepted by everyone else?

Because the word 'the past' already exists (well technically that's a phrase) and there's no need to muddle what is essentially a human construct to explain human actors and events to mean the same thing.

The generalized definition works fine if you want to be general about something, but that's about it. Like I said. There's a major disconnect between academics and non-academics when it comes to history. Go check out the Greek word histor from which history is derived. It means inquiry. The old English Historae which literally means 'story' or 'narrative.' It's not until the beginning of the field of Natural History that we start to see the word used in a context disconnected from the human race, and I personally blame that development with muddling what the word means down to near uselessness.

Tadashi wrote:But the universe (and many other things besides) has a history of its own, and one we barely (if even barely) have begun to know.

The universe has nothing. Unless your name is Spinoza it cannot possess anything, because it isn't conscious.

History is imposed by humans, it doesn't exist separately. In this way its much like "meaning" and "value".

While I'd rather not be put on the same level as Tadashi, I don't think I'll ever agree with the definition of "history" only being relative to human history or written history or what not.

History is, generally, the study of past events, or more simply "the past", considered from our perspective in the timeline. We don't know the entirety of history, but that's half the fun...

Melissia wrote:History is, generally, the study of past events, or more simply "the past"

That's 100% correct. Problem is that the study is usually limited to human events and the human past, as properly history is a human construct to explain humanities past. There's no need for a 'history of dinosaurs' as Paleontologists already research and produce timelines for the dinosaurs, making a history of them redundant, not to mention somewhat improper as the tools for paleontology and history are very different.

The word natural history is in a sense ingenious, cause it describes perfectly what people of that time were doing; history but instead of humans. doing the same thing for the natural world instead. The problem is that their usage of history in these sense muddled the word and produced the now super generalized definition where history means anything that ever happened ever i.e. the past which isn't what history is.

Except, it is what history is.

I still have no reason to accept homocentrism.

Melissia wrote:Except, it is what history is.

History:

a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle:

History is a study of the past, not the past itself. It's an important distinction, as is the distinction that history proper is about people. Not everything that has ever been. Of course the 'usually written as a chronological account' is kind of going out the window. Lots of historians don't deal with things chronologically anymore cause its not always convenient, especially in global or comparative history.

I still have no reason to accept homocentrism.

No one is saying you have to accept your red herring (which btw puts a very different image in my head than what you intend XD). History doesn't exist to make humanity the special species of forever anymore than Ornithology exists to make birds super special awesome. Its a faulty way of looking at the issue.

This discussion has nothing to do with homocentrism. It's about the difference between what most people think history is and what historians say history is.