300

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

And yes, the symbolism in Superman Returns wasn't lost on me.

That's what I thought, until a Ph.D took me through the movie. It's actually quite amazing.

But yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about subliminal messages or morals in this one.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Besides, what historian can truly be said to tell the history, rather than the legend, before modern times? Not many. If the movie gives too much credit to the Spartans for safeguarding freedom from tyranny and reason over mysticism, oh well.

I agree with what you say here. However, it is important to note that Herodotus considered himself to be writing something altogether different from legend, something called "history." Thus, we honor him as the father of "history," as patently fanciful as much that he wrote was. Ironically, he has also been called the father of lies (many bestow that honor on the anonymous author or authors of the Pentateuch). While much of what Herodotus wrote may fairly be characterized as legend, the distinction between history and legend in any epoch following him is real and meaningful and important.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

lol...you read THAT much into the movie.

Relax and be entertained. It's a frickin' movie. lol.

What would you know about it? It must give you comfort to believe there's no symbolism to be had. Truth is most successful screenwriters are well educated and well read and the symobolism whether introduced consciously or subconsciously may be the best available plot devices, as well as what may add richness and depth. You couldn't make a film about Thermopylae without making it rich with symbolism, intended or unintended, as much of our popular culture and lore derives from legends such as Thermopylae, particularly Thermopylae. I think Frank Miller has a pretty thorough understanding of the place this story has in our culture.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I agree with what you say here. However, it is important to note that Herodotus considered himself to be writing something altogether different from legend, something called "history." Thus, we honor him as the father of "history," as patently fanciful as much that he wrote was. Ironically, he has also been called the father of lies (many bestow that honor on the anonymous author or authors of the Pentateuch). While much of what Herodotus wrote may fairly be characterized as legend, the distinction between history and legend in any epoch following him is real and meaningful and important.

Have you read Herodotus, by the way? No ill will intended, I assure you; I'm just curious.

Herodotus opens his account in a way nobody else of his era did. Most accounts were for the glorification of the king. Here's what Herodotus wrote:

This is the Showing forth of the Inquiry [gk: histories] of Herodotus of Halicarnassos, to the end that neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous, which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, may lose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another.

He's not writing for the glorification of a KING, unlike many others who grossly exaggerated their accounts in order to do so. He wrote for the glorification of the EVENTS. He is a conservative writer, writing to ensure that the events do not diminish in glory, and does often show unusual methods for his time. On several occasions, he presents one version of a story and then another, saying he's not sure which is true, but presents it to the reader to decide. He does also get a lot of things just plain wrong. No modern historian can agree to, for example, the number of the armies of the Persians, which are always impossibly large in comparison to the pitiful few of the Greeks.

He does not always refrain from telling legend in place of history.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Have you read Herodotus, by the way? No ill will intended, I assure you; I'm just curious.

Herodotus opens his account in a way nobody else of his era did. Most accounts were for the glorification of the king. Here's what Herodotus wrote:

This is the Showing forth of the Inquiry [gk: histories] of Herodotus of Halicarnassos, to the end that neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous, which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, may lose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another.

He's not writing for the glorification of a KING, unlike many others who grossly exaggerated their accounts in order to do so. He wrote for the glorification of the EVENTS. He is a conservative writer, writing to ensure that the events do not diminish in glory, and does often show unusual methods for his time. On several occasions, he presents one version of a story and then another, saying he's not sure which is true, but presents it to the reader to decide. He does also get a lot of things just plain wrong. No modern historian can agree to, for example, the number of the armies of the Persians, which are always impossibly large in comparison to the pitiful few of the Greeks.

He does not always refrain from telling legend in place of history.

I'm not sure what your point is here or how it relates to my point, which your post does not dispute and is indubitably true, but yes I have read Herodotus, many times. I said that much of what he wrote was legend and he even rivals the Old Testament author(s) for the title father of lies. As I noted, what's important is that he stands for a distinction between history and legend that came into being with his writings regardless of their legendary content to a great extent.

AA loves to run home to his computer from BYU college courses to show off what a little smarty pants he is, but he calls Old Testament geneologies "history."

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm not sure what your point is here or how it relates to my point, which your post does not dispute and is indubitably true, but yes I have read Herodotus, many times. I said that much of what he wrote was legend and he even rivals the Old Testament author(s) for the title father of lies. As I noted, what's important is that he stands for a distinction between history and legend that came into being with his writings regardless of their legendary content to a great extent.

AA loves to run home to his computer from BYU college courses to show off what a little smarty pants he is, but he calls Old Testament geneologies "history."

He most certainly can call it 'history' for ALL history is incomplete and the bible is no exception.

Your condescension untoward AA is evidence of the narrow focus and immaturity of your own understanding of the cited history.

Why the pretense? Speak honestly … you believe you are the authority and that his challenge is idiotic.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

He most certainly can call it 'history' for ALL history is incomplete and the bible is no exception.

Your condescension untoward AA is evidence of the narrow focus and immaturity of your own understanding of the cited history.

Why the pretense? Speak honestly … you believe you are the authority and that his challenge is idiotic.

Truly I don't think AA and I even disagree about the Old Testament or Herodotus. I'd be surprised if we really did. I'm just giving him a hard time because he asked if I'd read Herodotus. My point in response to him here was indeed that he didn't even seem to be disagreeing with me but the tone of his post was surprisingly unfriendly. In the Old Testament thread he clarified that he did not really regard those geneologies as history, but apparently he's still sore at me over that. Oh, we may still disagree about the Greeks' place in the history of the study of science. But now that he's officially a classisist I really very much doubt that we do.

[Solon]

I don't think the two of are really in disagreement on this issue. What you're both getting at is that Herodotus did something new. His historia [inquiry] is the first recorded investigation into the cause of something, namely the reasons behind the wars between the Persians and the Greeks. (1.1)

While Herodotus does engage in some rudimentary source criticism and takes efforts to establish his credibility, his account clearly contains some wild inaccuracies - causing some ancient writers to call him the "father of lies" as well as "the father of history."

Nevertheless, these epithets are the result of later historians' conception of historia, not Herodotus'. Modern ideas of genre, such as history, rhetoric, mythography, chronography, etc. are not really applicable in the ancient world.

It's not a coincidence that Herodotus has survived, but the writings of more "accurate" historians such as Ephorus, Hellanicus, or Theopompus have not. His work is hugely significant in the history of the western world.

If I were to start a religion, Herodotus would be my scripture.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I don't think the two of are really in disagreement on this issue. What you're both getting at is that Herodotus did something new. His historia [inquiry] is the first recorded investigation into the cause of something, namely the reasons behind the wars between the Persians and the Greeks. (1.1)

While Herodotus does engage in some rudimentary source criticism and takes efforts to establish his credibility, his account clearly contains some wild inaccuracies - causing some ancient writers to call him the "father of lies" as well as "the father of history."

Nevertheless, these epithets are the result of later historians' conception of historia, not Herodotus'. Modern ideas of genre, such as history, rhetoric, mythography, chronography, etc. are not really applicable in the ancient world.

It's not a coincidence that Herodotus has survived, but the writings of more "accurate" historians such as Ephorus, Hellanicus, or Theopompus have not. His work is hugely significant in the history of the western world.

If I were to start a religion, Herodotus would be my scripture.

So you don't like Thucydides?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

I don't think the two of are really in disagreement on this issue. What you're both getting at is that Herodotus did something new. His historia [inquiry] is the first recorded investigation into the cause of something, namely the reasons behind the wars between the Persians and the Greeks. (1.1)

While Herodotus does engage in some rudimentary source criticism and takes efforts to establish his credibility, his account clearly contains some wild inaccuracies - causing some ancient writers to call him the "father of lies" as well as "the father of history."

Nevertheless, these epithets are the result of later historians' conception of historia, not Herodotus'. Modern ideas of genre, such as history, rhetoric, mythography, chronography, etc. are not really applicable in the ancient world.

It's not a coincidence that Herodotus has survived, but the writings of more "accurate" historians such as Ephorus, Hellanicus, or Theopompus have not. His work is hugely significant in the history of the western world.

If I were to start a religion, Herodotus would be my scripture.

I adopt what Solon said except my standard works would be Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, and Epicurus. It's amazing how many times in the Trial of Socrates the so-called father of philosophical inquiry, indeed one could say empiricism itself, alludes to and cites the Iliad, on the very eve of his death (this is a sublime point regardless of whether it is considered from Plato's or Socrates' viewpoint). The power of myth, eh?