Genuine question: why are we so bad at theory in Classics? Granted my thesis is heavily theory based, but I have read so much outside the discipline this past year and it has improved my work so much. Why are we so behind??
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Some really good points being made here about the conservatism of classics, but I'd also offer that part of it has to do with training. Classics, in my experience, demands a level of language training above a lot of similar disciplines. That leaves less time for theory.
I don't necessarily think that language demand is always unreasonable. Latin and Greek (and Akkadian and Aramaic, etc) are demanding languages made more difficult by the intervention of centuries. But a person can only learn so much in graduate school and later.
-
-
I've always found it very hard to balance the degree to which I need to have a command of Greek and Latin with the need to master the theory of the historical discipline, with the need to also be in command (as a military historian) of military theory and terminology.
-
I can only imagine those pressures would be even harder to navigate if I had to also master, say, the complexities of poetic meter or heaven help me archaeological praxis for field work at the level that a philologist or an archaeologist does.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.