31–40 of 107 posts
I feel like I have to channel my old math teacher. It was Euler. He also lived without electricity, and went blind too. And yet he figured out a huge amount of interesting stuff, roughly corresponding with high school math. Euler also moved across countries.
History is written by the victors. The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. Without dismissing Bach's work (or the others named in the discussion, I would had picked Leonardo with my shallow default knowledge on the topic) we should acknowledge how biased is what we know. Not just because how we select what…
I feel like I have to channel my old math teacher. It was Euler. He also lived without electricity, and went blind too. And yet he figured out a huge amount of interesting stuff, roughly corresponding with high school math. Euler also moved across countries.
How's the saying go, everything that wasn't invented by Euler was invented by Gauss?
Around the year 2000, amongst the other things that were going on, it was also the 250th anniversary of Bach's death. Someone at the record label Teldec got the bright idea to release the entirely of Bach's work, and so a 153-disc box set was produced: * https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/the-complete-b... * https://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2013/Apr13/B... * https://www.amazon.com/Bach-2000-…
Deutsche Grammophon produced something similar recently, which I was lucky enough to get for Christmas last year: https://www.bach333.com/en/ It is stunning in every way; I highly recommend it for any Bach fans!
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4jjc7SCCeXZ0PmvnKZgjpx?si=...
750 performers contributed to 260 hours of recordings. The three hours I rounded up would represent a major part of some other‘s work.
History is written by the victors. The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. Without dismissing Bach's work (or the others named in the discussion, I would had picked Leonardo with my shallow default knowledge on the topic) we should acknowledge how biased is what we know. Not just because how we select what…
> History is written by the victors No it isn't, history is written by people looking at old documents. Losers write a lot of history as well since it isn't like the victors go and kill all the losers or burn down all their documents. > The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. Yes, the history taught to us…
People are quick to dogpile on entities that do self criticism while proud egoists who never analyze themselves rarely get that.
[flagged]
Most written books are just people talking out of their ass as well, history is full of people publishing bullshit.
His fame also took a long time to establish. He was well known during his life but nothing like the mythical legend he is now today.
History is written by the victors. The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. Without dismissing Bach's work (or the others named in the discussion, I would had picked Leonardo with my shallow default knowledge on the topic) we should acknowledge how biased is what we know. Not just because how we select what…
I know you imagine that this is a profound observation but unfortunately it isn't. We all have it in our teens and twenties then we realise (decades later if we're unlucky) that it means much less than we thought.
We imagine that the work that reaches us now is so incomplete as to render present judgements about the past invalid or so inaccurate as to be misleading or useless. But culture and civilisation, are in a real sense, defined as what _endures_.
When it comes to the values that endure, it is more likely than not that humans pass along "the best things". Culture, after all, is downstream of genes and evolution.
There is no "better culture" hiding somewhere but hidden by our biases or by a conspiracy of victors. There are no better artists lost to the past who were so good that had they not been lost our knowledge and appreciation of art today would be far different and superior to what it is now.
"Acknowledging how biased is what we know" is similarly not as valuable an idea as it sounds because acknowledging bias doesn't actually reveal better information. The worst that bias can do is impede arriving at rational logical conclusions, and that is easily corrected by debate amongst enough people over a long enough period.
Another way to say this is we are always collectively evaluating stuff in the past based on the best information we have available now. To acknowledge a putative bias doesn't take you _outside_ of the sphere of our knowledge of the past in which we are making judgements because even the fact that you can think and utter that statement is a result of the cultural values that were given to you and are thus already a part of the culture.
There is nothing _outside_ of culture.
It depends on your definition of greatness. Alexander the Great and Napoleon come to mind.
It depends on your definition of greatness. Alexander the Great and Napoleon come to mind.
Obviously, "it depends". In fact, in the article, a comprehensive list of criteria is given.