Richard Bulliet - History of the World to 1500 CE (Session 6) - The Mediterranean and Middle East

[@thurdl01]

Full title of the book he couldn't remember at the 22nd minute is The Greeks and the Irrational by E. R. Doods.

[@f-lor4]

always nice to rewatch that lecture

[@suckmecok]

@godspeasant You realize he's teaching a history class, right? He's discussing the history of language, not the nature of language. Bulliet's very familiar with the field of linguistics and a very well respected academic. You're bringing up philosophy and cognitive neurosci issues (definition of a tree) in a history class. Maybe that's why all your conversations reach a premature end.

[@Crestflame]

I absolutely agree. The model of a thing is not the thing itself. This is why one word means something different to every different person, albeit in most cases being small and insignificant differences. However I also don't see how this is relevant here.

[@InfiniteUniverse88]

I'd play the world history board game.

[@michaelccozens]

@godspeasant How is the definition of "tree" at all relevant?

[@goedelite]

I found Prof Buillet's discussion of the micro- and macrocosm intriguing, because it begs the question is there an elemental difference between the "modeling" the ancients assumed that, for example, of I.Newton, with respect to planetary motions and that of a cannon-ball? My view is yes, there is such a difference, and that difference makes the Professor's comparison simpley entertaining. The difference I note: the observations used by Newton and Kepler of the planetary motions, made by Tycho Brahe, were not "models" for Kepler and Newton in a sense that can be described by anything as simple as scaling. When the connection between the macro observations and the micro conclusions require a highly elaborate degree of mathematic, challenging for most college students, in the Newtonian case, it deserves a more appropriate description than modeling. Indeed, there is a word for it: physics.

[@thecontentcr34tor85]

Did this man say you can see a ghost... thats crazy because ive seen one and only heard of 2 or three people in my life to describe it as i had see...brutal

[@michaelccozens]

@godspeasant You're describing semiotics, which is certainly an interesting field, but doesn't really apply to a history course. And 'tree" has any number of definitions, depending on the context you're using when you apply the term. No word has a universal definition. I'm still not sure I understand your criticism of the lecture.

[@Selvepnea]

0:00

[@Aristides368]

At 1:09:10 the professor declares that the ancient practice of self-deification by Hellenistic rulers "is very close of course to modern politics in America." How does he get that?

[@radicalantitheist]

and three years later you have your answer

[@_ata_3]

The oracle is a specialist in ambiguity, so true 😂

[@godspeasant]

@michaelccozens He discusses how language diffuses, which is interesting, but that doesn't explain what language is, nor how it limits people's perception of reality. It would take me too long to describe it here, but basically every word is a representation of the actual objects/ideas. Every person's idea is based on their limited experiences in life. Most importantly, nothing in this world can ever be defined, unless if one creates imaginary borders around it, like we have for countries.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

That’s not within the scope of this *history* course. What you want is a course on De Saussure’s “Course on General Linguistics”, which itself actually avoids historical analysis.

[@suckmecok]

There's no need to "first describe what language is" in a world history class. It's a history class, not a linguistics or philosophy class. Your argument is like asking a physicist to "first define the parameters of numerical theory" before teaching a physics class. Bulliet is a world renowned historian and academic who teaches at one of the top universities in the world. He's probably been teaching history longer than you've been alive. Face it Peasant, you're wrong.

[@goedelite]

I wish to amend my comment of about an hour ago: There is a commonality in the ancient view and the Newtonian and even Einsteinian view: that the laws describe the macro and micro worlds are the same.

[@aigerimdyikanbaeva6567]

особенно топленое слмвочное масло сары май или масло кхи

[@EsatBargan]

Robinson Richard Lopez Joseph Thomas Steven

[@aigerimdyikanbaeva6567]

dont afraid ofanimal oil ir isgood for brain and memory power

[@mickmickymick6927]

this is the slowest talking man in history

[@godspeasant]

It makes no difference where or how long he has been teaching. Neither of those make him a good nor a correct researcher. That being said, many researchers have been in the wrong for hundreds of years until someone else provided a new hypothesis to go by. So that entire argument is irrelevant here. The point I am making is not a minor one. It has implications on all of his conclusions. So it is very important. And if you fail to see it, then good luck on your future endeavors.

[@godspeasant]

I think one of his previous lectures he discussed language, but he did not go into too much depth. He is very good at regurgitating facts, but he doesn't think about what he is saying. Anyway, whenever you debate an "intellectual", ask them to define what a tree is. At that point, the conversation reaches an end. lol. However, this is still entertaining to watch.

[@godspeasant]

Thank you for trying to insult me.

[@godspeasant]

Yeah I do realize that this is a history class, but that is not relevant. Ask any academic, you can't start a discussion without properly defining the words you use. So shouldn't he first define what language is before talking about the "history of language"? Well he fails to do that. And that is what I am pointing out here. That is all.

[@godspeasant]

He discusses different technologies without realizing that language IS a technology. So in essence when he says that "language diffuses", he is no more saying how "the wheel diffuses" across the globe. So he is not adding anything interesting here. And yes, it is highly relevant here because he is trying to talk about technology. It is too bad that this "intellectual" only scratches the surface though. It would have been more interesting if he actually knew what he was actually saying.

[@TheSpottedArtist]

“Most students at Columbia don’t believe in an unseen world….” So, they don’t believe in x-rays, ultraviolet rays, gravity, magnetics, etc. ? Lol. This guy’s prejudices crack me up!

[@Gett37]

Things you’ve listed can be seen with the help of additional stuff

[@ssrobot4809]

You honestly can see those things with proper tools.

[@TheSpottedArtist]

Yes, the other things I listed can now be seen with modern tech, but there was a time before that tech was developed. To imply that we’ve developed all the tech we’re going to and we can now see everything in the “unseen” world would be naive and extremely conceited.