Pseudo-history, and related issues

[Jona Lendering]

Yes what's wrong with that view?

That it is counterfactual, as Max Weber proved in the early twentieth century.

by the way, the arguments for Western exceptionalism were not first put forward in the 19th century, but have been present for centuries prior

Even earlier than you think: the first references to "Europenses" as an independent unity with its own tradition is eighth-century (in the "Mozarabic Chronicle of 754"). What I was aiming at was the philosophical underpinning of this idea by people like J.S. Mill. Yet, you are right that I could have gone back to an earlier period.

Cartledge and Holland however are a different story. They are done a disservice by being lumped with Farrokh.

Holland just had an unhappy hand in chosing Cartledge as his adviser, true.

Cartledge himself, however, is a different matter. He has a job at a university and must therefore know the article by Weber. If he doesn't, this raises serious questions: how is it possible that someone lacking basic qualifications can obtain a job? (Of course this is normal in politics, banks, and business enterprises. :wink: ) The alternative, which I believe is more plausible, is that Cartledge does know that his argument has been refuted a century ago, but prefers to ignore it. But maybe I am overestimating his knowledge. What I am certain about is that he was wrong to write a laudatory review of Holland's book, a book that he has contributed to. He must have known that this was a conflict of interests.