GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-02 > 1265075572


From: taf <>
Subject: Re: Fw: Sources
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:52:52 -0800 (PST)
References: <mailman.230.1264968913.1999.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> <bfc8b1b3-a1a3-4e06-83d4-f13d77a5ff9c@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <de0ad8ef-3789-4b0d-bffa-f51f8e7499d4@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <8cd88426-a2f4-4756-b156-aa8beae11a4d@l12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <570ab2fa-6a27-4d26-9b5b-b3de3c3c47dd@u18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>


On Feb 1, 11:33 am, lostcopper <> wrote:

> One obstacle to studying the historical traditions of non-"western"
> cultures is that fundamental definitions differ: can the truth of
> earlier generations (as in your Nigerian example) be invalidated by a
> subsequent truth? Is it replaced or is it enlarged?

This is the same linguistic shell-game. We need to be talking about
the same 'truth'. If it is truth as reflected by correctly reflecting
historical facts, then we can address it using scholarly methods. If
it is some philosophical 'truth' divorced from historical facts, then
trying to apply an analysis of historical facts to it is pointless. In
fact, all bets are off, because with such cultural truths, each person
has their own, reflecting their personal spin on the cultural setting.
There is not a western vs. non-western cultures division either.
There are aspects of Western culture that have there own 'truths' that
are divorced from scientific/scholarly facts.

taf


This thread: