To be a true classicist, which languages does one need to master?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Isn't a major motivation for the distinction between western and non western history racism?

As I read and listened to multiple lectures about orientalism I found myself asking aloud ... Does the eastern student make the same distinctions as the western student? Does he/she consider himself a classicist and giggle at the thought of those westerners who beleive they are in fact classicists?

These are very valid questions IMO

No. That's what losers like Edward Said trying to rationalize losing thought. The major motivation is to understand, for example, why South Asia, Subsaharan Africa, and for that matter Russia, China and Iraq are the way they are, and the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan, are the way they are. There are also many permutations in between. To dismiss the fate of peoples as all a product of imperialism and racism is, well, really stupid.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Marx was a fool...So was webber

I don't know if he was a fool, nor do I think all of his ideas are foolish. Those are some harsh words for someone you have never met.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No. That's what losers like Edward Said trying to rationalize losing thought. The major motivation is to understand, for example, why South Asia, Subsaharan Africa, and for that matter Russia, China and Iraq are the way they are, and the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan, are the way they are. There are also many permutations in between. To dismiss the fate of peoples as all a product of imperialism and racism is, well, really stupid.

Idealy the major motivation is 'to understand'. Experience has taught me though that it is less of a desire 'to understand' as much as it is a desire to define ourselves by what we are not. Such is a fundamental tenant of human nature.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm no Classicist.

I suspect what Solon means when he says the study of Classics is dying is that Classics per se as a field of study is dying. And this is so precisely because you could say separating out the Classics for studying in a vacuum is artificial. Our whole Western world is Classical and has been--in varying degrees, to be sure--since Greece transformed itself into the Roman Republic/Empire.

As to the first sentence, I suppose I have a unique point of view as to who is a "Classicist." In my mind, it's anyone who has knowledge of Classical civilization. It does not require a degree, nor a British accent. I like the idea of democratizing the Classics, although it would have driven the nineteenth century's good-old-boys nuts. A Classical education used to (and still does, to some extent) denote a privileged upbringing. I enjoy being the hick from our west when I rub shoulders with the Ivy League snobs.

Secondly, thanks for clarifying the point. Vestiges of the ancient world are thriving in the modern west, and cherry-picking portions of it and calling that a University's department of "Classics" is just glorified antiquarianism, so I think.

I also agree that the impetus behind India, China, and Japan's modern economic vibrancy is an incorporation of traditional values the west inherited from the Greeks including, among others, notions of private property and an empowered middle class.