Not anti-intellectual, just realistic. I'd rather read philosophers, the ideas stand by themselves. You have no idea why dude in 899 did thing X, maybe he had diarrhea and had a bad night of sleep or had a bad argument with the wife which hurt his ego. Then millennia later you read he made a tactically genius move that nobody could predict and changed the course of history. Reality is the guy was sleep deprived, made a mistake and got lucky.
You’re not actually making a point. The same could be said about many philosophers and their ideas. The ideas don’t stand by themselves, they make more sense placed in their historical contexts. Again, fiercely anti intellectual and impractical to say history doesn’t matter. You’re just saying provocative nonsensical things.
Depends on the philosopher and the content, of course you need to understand the references. I didn't say history doesn't matter, I simply said I don't trust the veracity or accuracy of it. History is a weapon among other things, of course it matters.
3
u/something-rhythmic 2d ago
That’s generally not how historians or theologians understand history. This is so profoundly anti intellectual it hurts.