Roman Emperor Nero: Does He Deserve His Bad Boy Reputation?

[TheReturnofLive]

Do you know that NOTHING Nero did in a positive way covers for his evil deeds?

No one here has claimed that it did, including that one paragraph of the article that you say you read.

I read the beginning and the end. The end shows that meaning of the whole article, to make the man look not so bad because he had some good point. That just stinking ecumenical.

History is not concerned with moral judgments.

Your impression of Exsurge Domine is getting weaker.

No offense, and forgive me for saying so, but what a load of garbage.

History is absolutely concerned with moral judgments, and always has been, and those who say otherwise are liars. Otherwise people wouldn't be studying Slavery and Jim Crow, and wouldn't be studying the "domestic despotism" of days past. A friend of mine is writing a "thesis" right now on the relationship between Medieval Heresy and Patriarchy / Racism.

Have fun in ANY history department objectively talking about the positive things Hitler and Franco did without three pages worth of warnings and asterisks!

In order for a field of a study to exist, there must be some purpose behind why one should study, and that purpose will inevitably cloud one's objective assesment. As Nietzsche says, "We see that science also rests on a faith; there simply is no science 'without presuppositions.'"

[Vetus Ordo]

No offense, and forgive me for saying so, but what a load of garbage. History is absolutely concerned with moral judgments, and always has been, and those who say otherwise are liars.

You do have a way with words.

History, as a social science, is concerned with the accurate representation of the past. The development of the historical method goes back to Thucydides in Ancient Greece. Ibn Khaldun, the father of historiography, was another pre-modern figure whose scientific approach to the discipline laid the groundwork for the observation of the role of the state, communication, propaganda and systematic bias in the writing of history. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the whole science of history progressed by leaps and bounds and the overall production of historical knowledge flourished at an unprecedented rate.

You seem to be confusing the bias of some historians, influenced by political or religious views, with the goals and the methods of the science itself. Simply put, history examines and analyzes a sequence of past events and tries to objectively and impartially identify the patterns of cause and effect that determine them. Any history that is made on the basis of moral judgements of the past is not a scientific discipline.

In order for a field of a study to exist, there must be some purpose behind why one should study, and that purpose will inevitably cloud one's objective assesment. As Nietzsche says, "We see that science also rests on a faith; there simply is no science 'without presuppositions.'"

Objective assessment is the goal behind the production of historical knowledge. You obviously haven't studied the historical method and the development of criticism in historiography, among other things.

[TheReturnofLive]

You do have a way with words.

Thank you.

You seem to be confusing the bias of some historians, influenced by political or religious views, with the goals and the methods of the science itself. Simply put, history examines and analyzes a sequence of past events and tries to objectively and impartially identify the patterns of cause and effect that determine them. Any history that is made on the basis of moral judgements of the past is not a scientific discipline.

No, I'm not. While the methodology and the historians are distinct, the methodology employed is always a result of historians who cannot ever be impartial, due to the fact that their very motivations for studying history will always influence the study of history itself. Even if it's a pure search for some kind of model of economics impacting human behavior, the idea that there could be some kind of model of economics impacting human behavior to be found in historical study will influence the data that's gathered, collected, and analyzed.

Let us not forget that models are mere replicas of reality as it exists, while ignoring no doubt countless upon countless factors and influences. Plus, our own biases and sense of morality / justice will undoubtedly impact what correlations and causations are salient and which correlations and causations are insignificant to us. The 19th century and before didn't look to why St. Joan of Arc was such a popular figure from a feminist perspective. Now, in the 20th century onwards, it's suddenly the key, the end all be all solution to why St. Joan of Arc was such a popular figure, especially among women. And you do not consider that our changing of social norms from a purely patriarchal society to that of women's rights (progressing to the point today of whining, bratty, spoiled feminist deconstructivism) had SOMETHING to do with that?

Ever find a model or theory of history that wasn't flawed? Has there ever been a model or theory of history which has been dismissed because it's "outdated and bigoted?" We cannot have racist or sexist models of history, correct?

Objective assessment is the goal behind the production of historical knowledge. You obviously haven't studied the historical method and the development of criticism in historiography, among other things.

And the goal of sex-reassignment surgery is to change a so-called "socially constructed" gender of an individual. Doesn't make it so.

I need not to study the history of historiography to criticize the philosophical underpinnings of any scientific field.

[Kreuzritter]

.

[Vetus Ordo]

No, I'm not. While the methodology and the historians are distinct, the methodology employed is always a result of historians who cannot ever be impartial, due to the fact that their very motivations for studying history will always influence the study of history itself. Even if it's a pure search for some kind of model of economics impacting human behavior, the idea that there could be some kind of model of economics impacting human behavior to be found in historical study will influence the data that's gathered, collected, and analyzed.

You're moving the goalposts. We're talking about a social science and no social science can ultimately be devoid of the frailties of human interpretation. You stated that history is absolutely concerned with moral judgments (...) and those who say otherwise are liars. This is factually incorrect as far as the scientific discipline of history is concerned. That's all. The purpose of the historical method is to render the interpretation of the historical facts, and the critique of the historical sources, as impartial and objective as possible. That there are philosophical presuppositions at play, as well as other factors of bias in the sources or in the works of some historians, is recognized by the discipline itself. It's a work in construction. That's why the historical method was developped and why there's a cumulative process of analysis and critique.

Ever find a model or theory of history that wasn't flawed? Has there ever been a model or theory of history which has been dismissed because it's "outdated and bigoted?" We cannot have racist or sexist models of history, correct?

No model that attempts to interpret reality is flawless. So? The goal of the scientific discipline of history is to collect and interpret the historical data as impartially as possible and to offer possible correlations and causative principles. There is no room for moral judgments as such.

And the goal of sex-reassignment surgery is to change a so-called "socially constructed" gender of an individual. Doesn't make it so.

Ridiculous analogy.

I need not to study the history of historiography to criticize the philosophical underpinnings of any scientific field.

It would be advisable to understand the methods and the goals of the discipline in question before declaring anyone who enunciates them a liar, though.

[TheReturnofLive]

You're moving the goalposts. We're talking about a social science and no social science can ultimately be devoid of the frailties of human interpretation. You stated that history is absolutely concerned with moral judgments (...) and those who say otherwise are liars. This is factually incorrect as far as the scientific discipline of history is concerned. That's all. The purpose of the historical method is to render the interpretation of the historical facts, and the critique of the historical sources, as impartial and objective as possible. That there are philosophical presuppositions at play, as well as other factors of bias in the sources or in the works of some historians, is recognized by the discipline itself. It's a work in construction. That's why the historical method was developped and why there's a cumulative process of analysis and critique.

No, I'm not, because human beings by their very nature are moral, and they will project their own morality, their own conditions, and their own life experiences onto the history to be studied. I mean, look at the very title of the article which you posted: "Nero: Does he deserve his bad boy reputation?"

And look at the conclusion sentence of the article:

"To conclude, Nero is commonly considered to be one of the most wicked emperors Rome ever had, and he is remembered as such even till this day. Indeed, a list of the ‘worst emperors of the Roman Empire’ would not be complete without him. Whilst it cannot be denied that Nero was a terrible emperor, he was not without any positive points. For instance, the first five years of his reign can be viewed positively, whilst his actual conduct during the Great Fire of Rome is noteworthy. Nevertheless, these are often left out, perhaps unjustly so, leaving us only with the image of Nero the monster."

Purely objective, huh? "Indeed, a list of the 'worst' emprerors of the Roman Empire' would not be complete without him," "Nero was a terrible emperor," "For instance, the first five years of his reign can be viewed positively, whilst his actual conduct during the Great Fire of Rome is noteworthy."

What if I'm a degenerate who views dominance is power - might means right, and I think Nero was one of the best emperors ever made? Why would your article be construed as objective?

No model that attempts to interpret reality is flawless. So? The goal of the scientific discipline of history is to collect and interpret the historical data as impartially as possible and to offer possible correlations and causative principles. There is no room for moral judgments as such.

It's a lie, see above.

Ridiculous analogy.

No, it's not. It's marketing vs. reality.

It would be advisable to understand the methods and the goals of the discipline in question before declaring anyone who enunciates them a liar, though.

I'm not denying what the goals are, I'm just saying that those goals cannot possibly be met, and it's wrong to pretend those goals are met.

[Michael Wilson]

It's sickening to realize what supposed Catholics listen to as "music." What wretched vulgarity. It's no wonder God has punished these last generations so thoroughly.

Look at it this way, if one is listening to what is regarded as today's music, that is punishment enough.

[TheReturnofLive]

It's sickening to realize what supposed Catholics listen to as "music." What wretched vulgarity. It's no wonder God has punished these last generations so thoroughly.

Look at it this way, if one is listening to what is regarded as today's music, that is punishment enough.

I should probably change that now that that user's banned. Sorry, just wanted to mock him.

[Vetus Ordo]

No, I'm not, because human beings by their very nature are moral, and they will project their own morality, their own conditions, and their own life experiences onto the history to be studied. I mean, look at the very title of the argue which you posted: "Nero: Does he deserve his bad boy reputation?"

The article was written for a popular magazine. It's not a historical thesis or an article for a scientific publication. It's pop history which is what draws people to a given subject, hopefully to study it more in-depth. I've shared one or two scientific papers in this sub-forum before but the large public is not usually interested in that. What's interesting about said article, and the reason why I shared it in the first place, is that it attempts to give us a more complete view of the figure of Nero. Obviously it's not a proper historical essay and it does verge on moralizing depictions. That much is understood if one is educated and knows how to contextualize information.

In any case, I was responding casually to a troll until you popped in, triumphantly declaring that those who enunciate the goals of the scientific discipline of history are liars. Res ipsa loquitur.

I'm not denying what the goals are, I'm just saying that those goals cannot possibly be met, and it's wrong to pretend those goals are met.

No-one is pretending anything. The discipline exists, it has a clear method, it has goals and it has auxiliary disciplines that contribute to the production of historical knowledge. Your repetitive appeal to human bias and the philosophical presuppositions that exist in any field of knowledge is besides the point, as I've already explained. I'm afraid you have but a passing knowledge of the discipline itself and I encourage you to read more about it.

[Kreuzritter]

No-one is pretending anything. The discipline exists, it has a clear method, it has goals and it has auxiliary disciplines that contribute to the production of historical knowledge. Your repetitive appeal to human bias and the philosophical presuppositions that exist in any field of knowledge is besides the point, as I've already explained. I'm afraid you have but a passing knowledge of the discipline itself and I encourage you to read more about it.

But it's not, because not only are the methods dependent upon presuppositions but even the goals. The very notion of an "accurate representation of the past" and what that is, before one even gets to how to go about constructing such a thing and questions of epistemology as they concern history, entails presuppositions about the nature of reality and language. You talk about "impartiality" and "objectivity", for instance, but we don't have to accept that these words even refer to any reality, let alone that such a reality is achievable.

[Vetus Ordo]

...entails presuppositions about the nature of reality and language.

So do all sciences and fields of human knowledge.

Unless one is arguing for some form of radical skepticism, I don't really see the relevance of that point.

[Kreuzritter]

...entails presuppositions about the nature of reality and language.

So do all sciences and fields of human knowledge.

Unless one is arguing for some form of radical skepticism, I don't really see the relevance of that point.

That you don't see the absolute relevance is irrelevant to its truth and its implications for the veracity of "history". I don't need to be arguing from a position of "radical skepticism" to reject presuppositions underlying the world view, indeed the basis for their ideas of an "impartial" and "objective" attempt at an  "accurate representation of the past", of most historians.

"Radicla skepticism" is not sole alternative to the dogmatic intersection of world views these historians and you have in common.

It's funny how entire disciplines whose "findings" are continually shoved down our throats as truth are built upon a metaphysical and epistemological house of cards that is simply taken as a given by their practitioners.

[Kreuzritter]

Here's a more mundane and practical question for Vetus:

What's your opinion of historical criticism, and the textual and literary criticism it subsumes, as it pertains to the Bible? It too has as its alleged goal the same ones as history in general, and it has its methods. Its findings are none-too favourable for the traditional view of the origin and reception of scripture, indeed, its most mainstream theories flatly contradict the Christian narrative of things.

[Vetus Ordo]

Here's a more mundane and practical question for Vetus:

What's your opinion of historical criticism, and the textual and literary criticism it subsumes, as it pertains to the Bible? It too has as its alleged goal the same ones as history in general, and it has its methods. Its findings are none-too favourable for the traditional view of the origin and reception of scripture, indeed, its most mainstream theories flatly contradict the Christian narrative of things.

Generally speaking, I have a favorable opinion of it. Historical and textual criticism are useful tools that have enabled us to make valuable progress in our knowledge of the Scriptures, their textual variants, the historical pedigree of the narrations, their inner coherence and their contextual existence vis-à-vis other ancient texts, regardless of the conclusions that some skeptics have upheld. Abusus non tollit usum. What we know about the Bible today is incomparable to what we knew just a century or two ago.

[TheReturnofLive]

Here's a more mundane and practical question for Vetus:

What's your opinion of historical criticism, and the textual and literary criticism it subsumes, as it pertains to the Bible? It too has as its alleged goal the same ones as history in general, and it has its methods. Its findings are none-too favourable for the traditional view of the origin and reception of scripture, indeed, its most mainstream theories flatly contradict the Christian narrative of things.

Generally speaking, I have a favorable opinion of it. Historical and textual criticism are useful tools that have enabled us to make valuable progress in our knowledge of the Scriptures, their textual variants, the historical pedigree of the narrations, their inner coherence and their contextual existence vis-à-vis other ancient texts, regardless of the conclusions that some skeptics have upheld. Abusus non tollit usum. What we know about the Bible today is incomparable to what we knew just a century or two ago.

Ah, like how logically impossible it must have been for Daniel to name Alexander the Great and how logically impossible it must have been for Jesus to predict the Temple's destruction.