300

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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?

Good point. I'm not a big fan of the "decline" paradigm for Greek history, but it's hard to find any Greek literature that can remotely compare to Homer. Talk about peaking early . . . I've heard that books are, generally, the width they are because they fit one line of dactylic hexameter.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So you don't like Thucydides?

I like Thucydides fine, but I like Herodotus more. Thucydides doesn't even finish the story and his Greek (esp. the speeches) is hard as hell.

Pericles' funeral oration and the Melian dialogue are unbelievably good, though.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

What exactly did you think I was saying when I said "no offense intended"? That there was offense intended? If my tone was surprisingly unfriendly, I assure you that it was unintentional. Neither am I sore over your objection in the thread wherein the origins of the Arab people were discussed. I do find it somewhat irritating that then, as now, you manage to misconstrue the original point, attack the perceived inferiority of the poster, and refuse to admit that you misinterpreted what was originally written.

And yes, we do still disagree about the Greek's place in the history of the study of science. Quite simply, you overemphasize it. The Greeks are a fundamental, innovative, groundbreaking link in the chain. They continued the intellectual inheritances they received from their predecessors, just as the Romans did from the Greeks. As far as you're concerned, history as we know it begins with the Greeks. Much credit is to be given to Hellenic society, but not THAT much credit.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by All-American

And yes, we do still disagree about the Greek's place in the history of the study of science. Quite simply, you overemphasize it. The Greeks are a fundamental, innovative, groundbreaking link in the chain. They continued the intellectual inheritances they received from their predecessors, just as the Romans did from the Greeks. As far as you're concerned, history as we know it begins with the Greeks. Much credit is to be given to Hellenic society, but not THAT much credit.

What's the debate about Greek science. Just that SU thinks the Greeks had a bigger role than AA does? Are we talking pre-Socratic Milesian theorists or Hellenistic Ptolemaic court practicioners?