Section 1 (1 Viewer)

[Koowy]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

i am so fcuked.
i said that she was against post modernism HAHA 0/25 for me.

I feel your pain! I wasted so much time contrasting her to Jenkins and now I find out she was a post-modernist too.

 

[nallask8r]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

dun wry , how is bos suppose to assume every1 knows clendien's personal background. you should be able to pick up enough from the source and clearly she does not sound post-modernist in that source. therefore those who said she was empircist/modernist (myself) will be fine.

 

[Asheroth]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

The dude above me, while having appalling spelling and grammar, is right. As long you justified your interpretation by backing it up from the source, you should be fine.

 

[Bobness]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

I studied Clendinnen. I *know* she's a post modernist. She said there were 'usable truths' - the empiricist belives there is one, absolute truth.

Myth making is a stab at relativists - namely Herodotus and Irving. Post modernists don't make up stuff

you're cool

Not having read the whoel thread but.

Clendinnen doesnt say history is a science .. i think this is taken out of context ... i believe she is actually deflating therold of the historian as a profession to say it is not so much a study of the past, but rather a scientific study of "... 'useable truth's regarding the human condition ..."

you're awesome

the first half of the source was in another paper. last years hsc i believe. same question on purpose too, except more specific

you should be studying chem. k thx bye :wave:

err couldn't you label just label her a modernist?

er how? if you'd like to do that (which i guess is possible ..) you'd have to back it up with evidence but its quite hard to grasp modernist historiography. i just lump it with empiricism but hey go for it.

EDIT: Done me some research, and it does seem to appear than Clendinnen has, at the very least, post-modernist sympathies:

The point is, I fail to see how we could have got this out of the source without at least some background knowledge of Clendinnen. It's entirely possible that the BOS took her out of context and intended to present her as a moderate empiricist, you know

glad someone found out and didn't continue jumping on the empiricist bandwagon.

you could probably try to see her as empiricist and justify this well HOWEVER it is of the view of the supreme court of awesomeness (i.e. me) that all the exceptionally top band (46+?) answers will probably be those that acknowledge her pomo/relativism background and can see instances of this in the text [COME ON the becker/vincent allusions with the role of public history should be enough to tickle your pomo senses]

the empiricist people will be just like those in standard english where most people get pushed down by scaling but there'll always be a couple of band 6s so all non-pomo advocates have hope. in particular i believe dasphoebus and asheroth to be extremely intelligent judging by the content of their posts and sincerely hope you guys will still do well 49 ftw!

 

[Bobness]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

Hey pwar, the above post is either extremely well-written or went off on a tangent a little bit

If you have time, would you be able to help us see what the poster was talking about? I lost the plot a little bit after he said clendinnen was neither pomo or empiricist. You shouldn't NEED to lump her into one category, but if you say she's neither, how do you compare and contrast other historians with her =/ ?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hey pwar,

Don't bring me into this.

spadijer > pwar at History Extension content.

That being said, I don't think students should 'allude' to anything. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Simple in an essay means plain language which is to the point.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I utterly agree with that perspective. Sadly, Einstein and Extension History are not always compatible i.e. you need to discuss postmodernism to get at the top of a top band - making the essay hardly simple. I think my essay was very coherent and made a complex issue simple: yes, to critical rationalism, down with grand narratives. Indeed, plain language in an essay is always necessary, however, without sacrificing flair and sophistication needed for a band 4...This is why I like the writing style of American philosopher Richard Rorty.

It's okay, as long as you don't write like Hegel! ;P

And Rorty is great - Philosophy and Social Hope is my favourite.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hegel is virtually useless. And Rorty writes like something out of Dolly magazine, but it works well for him, I guess. His essays on Foucault and Consquences of Pragmatism being exemplar for writing like a teen bimbo whilst conveying profound philosophical ideas/discussions in such a crude format.

Apparently Hegel is easier to read in German than in English. *shrugs*

 

[xeuyrawp]

Totally. But still he's useless. Almost all philosophers agree with that. Mind you, however, the only thing that came out of Hegel (I believe) were the interpretations related to him (i.e. right Hegel, idealistic Hegel, left wing Hegel bla bla bla), which led utlimately to other philosophical ideas and the Hegelian dialectic (which is the only useful things I can think of and even they were a result of Hegelian scholars, not the man himself). His ideas on history are rather reasonable as well.

Historical memory was central to Hegel's philosophy, I think.

Yes, I love all the interpretations of various philosophers: Kant-Hegel (Kant as interpreted by Hegel), Marx-Hegel, Marx-Kant, Heidegger-Marx... It's all very confusing.

I still think that Hegel was suffering from mercury-poisoning madness, or something. It's when he starts to get into things like the Owl of Minerva that I tend to flick forward a couple of pages to the end of whatever crazed rant he's fallen into.

There's an Egyptologist, named Jan Assmann, who is basically exactly the same as Hegel in writing style, ideas, everything. My friends and I are constantly ripping into Hegel's and Assmann's vague tangents. When Assmann came to Australia and did a lecture, we all fell into fits of laughter when he said that Hegel was his favourite writer on history.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Bahahahahahaha. "Hegel was his favourite writer on history". That's classic. Also, just a quick note: Heidegger rocks.

Oh, and PwarYuex, considering I've posted like a 7525649 responses to your blogs, do you have MSN (that you can apss through onto as a p.message)? You seem to be able to compose a coherent sentence, which is amazing on this site....considering most people "tlk lyk dis".

Yeah, this will go back and forward for a while.

You need to have PMs turned on! Anyway, my msn's rob.p@optusnet.com.au