"Proof": You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means
amber-and-mercury replied to your post: Anyone else seeing what I’m seeing her…
wtf at people freaking about Socrates. The only evidence we have of him is Plato said he existed. That’s it, that’s all there is. But the point isn’t “he didn’t exist”, it’s that he mattered. Just like Xiang Fei can matter, -should- matter.
I shouldn’t be surprised that people are flipping out about that, but…well, they are, and I am a little surprised. I think it was covered in at least three different classes required for my degree.
Then again, this is consistently why people have a problem with medievalpoc specifically and history in general-there is this expectation that there is “THE TRUTH” to be found and doled out like manna from heaven.
Whether or not Socrates actually existed as a person doesn’t actually matter at all. You’re still going to have to read and probably write about him at some point. I actually wrote a fairly entertaining Socratic dialogue years ago between Dido and Socrates in the underworld entitled “What Is Love? (Baby Don’t Hurt Me)”. Anyhow.
The problem is that people see a painting of Xiang Fei and demand some kind of incontrovertible “proof” that she ~actually existed~, while at the same time having no understanding that this is not how history works. Or anything, really.
I think my most fervent wish is that people would stop using the word “proof” entirely, especially folks who claim to be from the hard sciences.
From Oregon State University:
So, when I get replies and messages this like one:
I keep on saying that what people are demanding doesn’t actually exist, and yet them demands do not cease.
The only thing I could *conceivably* be said to have proven is that Europeans created images of people of color.
This is really about why it matters.