Very few people seem to be concerned with the library of alexandria, herodotus, julius ceasar, and other characters and stories that have very few if any primary source documentation. Of those that have supposed primary source documentation, it has been discovered within the last 200 years or so.
Without appealing to consensus or authority how would one go about verifying these tales? How do we know all of ancient history is not just an invention of the 1800s?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
archive.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
> What is invented is not real
> Not recognizing that reality is perpetually being conjured
History itself is not to be trusted, user.
okay last thursdayism
The only reason you believe the French Revolution occured in 1789 is because there is an abundance of people who wrote that it did. And the more people believe in it, the more it will be written to be so.
How can you, like, verify anything, dude
what is archaeology?
I do think it's amusing that the Battle of Thermopylae is considered more likely to have happened than the Resurrection when both have roughly the same amount of documentation.
I don't know. Which is why I am asking.
What part of "within the last 200 years" did you not understand?