Orthodox Format for a Historical Hypothesis?

[Onasander]

I have alot of my research for the Sardanapalus-King Zhou article complete, a few books yet to arrive in the mail.

 

I'm stumped.... I've seen plenty of academic Philosophy and History of Philosophy Journals, and don't think writing a thesis in that manner is proper or correct.... they find either a common theme amongst scattered works, or nitpick a few lines or words to death. I don't think presenting such a historical ground changing theory is correct in such a format.

 

Likewise, I've seen a few medical journals that specialize in hypothesis.... better, but I feel obliged, given my background in dialectics, to also list flaws likely in my theory, as well as weak points, contradictions, etc. I see a few issues with the text that allows alternative explanations, and am not convinced it's all taken from chinese history. I want to arm historians examining this with all scenerios, every assurance I have, but also doubts. I don't want to be taken as one of the "Flavians Invented Christianity" nutjobs, but also want the theory constructed in ease, under 30 pages, and lots of sources to consider.

 

I'm just not aware of the method historians prefer theories presented in. I want this to be eady to grasp.

[caldrail]

I don't think there's a set format as such. Explain your reasons for theorising, present your evidence, explain your findings, then present your conclusion. Don't forget to list sources and credits. It's the quality of your argument that matters, not the juxtaposition of texxt. As long as it's rational and readable it'll probably be okay.

[Onasander]

I've been trying to tackle the philosophy of history/history of philosophy issue for a long time. I've been increasingly noting more and more just how deeply influenced we are by the cascade of our emotions in asserting and accepting facts and opinions.

 

Most texts I've seen that are primary sources about the fall of the shang, like the Yizhou Shu, were written during the warring States for the most part, and they "hope" that they contain earlier elements in them.... I dunno. But.... this text is almost certainly earlier, as we know when Ctesias lived, the warring States had only just started, and he was dealing with a work already in a royal archive. The parallels are way too many (much more than I listed).... it's a slam dunk to say much of it is.... but I feel a responsibility to dissect it into it's parts and raise a billion questions and possibilities that could lead to a few centuries of historical griping and wrangling, which I'm okay with. My name will be forgotten, and I won't get the last word on this.

 

But knowing this..... I'm writing in essence for a future historical dialectic of historian trying to outthink the other, I find myself moving away from philosophers, like Vico's school.s

 

In the end, I'm dealing with a end product of a fact, a judgement. I present facts (a fact is never whole, were intelligent beings who manipulate ideas, so a fact is also it's logic and expanse of contradictions and usability) to counter assumptions or understandings.... which are judgments, and I'm categorizing stuff on congruence and respectability.... a sort of artistic aesthetic, of how facts seem most logically consistent, which is a fancy way of saying pleasurable to a mode of thinking. It's essentially a drug. We condition our style to acceptability of information....

 

A lot of my neural coding of Arius Didymus shows he was focused on the Middle Gyrus (at least in his Stoic Ethics)....

 

In order to bring in a older variant of this work, it will cause a hugh clash with the older Confucian manipulated version.... and I can easily quash it.... 2000+ theories based on this, gone. A major conundrum of Assyriology.... Gone. Axial Theory, gone..... but each of these are a dialectic process. This text I found wasn't obviously the first primary account either (evidence in it suggests some time already passed, think it's Spring and Autumn).... The focus for me shifts to honning my understanding of dialectics to seeing how "acceptability of judgments" resulted in a detectible morphology of approaching history, how each generation of it's civilization had to approach it. The natural way we accept and reject arguments. I have a intuitive instinct for this in debate, but never seen anyone try to structure the morphology except structuralist and Marxist. I'm scratching my head as to a method of presentation.... wrote 40 pages, but it's..... I don't know, it's wanting to give birth to a new approach, and I just don't quite grasp it. I want a history that is aware of judgement, able to explain the phenomenal aspects scientifically, while ending on a more orthodox note of acknowledging the excitement, and the fact I'm presenting judgments myself.... I'm not sure here....