The Politics of Epistemology | Society for US Intellectual History (2022)

The Politics of Epistemology | Society for US Intellectual History (1)Commenting on Ben Alpers’s recent post—“On the Origins of the Anti-Elitist Critique of Higher Ed”—our colleague Tim Lacy off-handedly mentioned the intertwining relationship between “liberalism and relativism.” When I read that, I chuckled, thinking to myself, “Wow! That’s a pretty innocent reference to such a complex intellectual history, one fraught with centuries worth of polemics!” This is not to say that Tim is innocent of this intellectual history. As the foremost expert on Mortimer Adler, the quintessential modern liberal metaphysician, Tim knows very well that plenty of intellectuals have attached their liberalism to anti-relativistic modes of thought. (Both Tim’s expertise on Adler and Adler’s liberal metaphysics are evident in Tim’s fantastic post: “Great Books Liberalism.”) Rather, Tim’s comment speaks to the pros and cons of the writing genre otherwise known as blog commentary. On the one hand, such commentary is necessarily impressionistic, sometimes even reductionist. On the other, it often incites deep thinking. Speaking to the merits of the latter, I’ve been obsessing about “liberalism and relativism,” about the politics of epistemology and, vice versa, the epistemology of politics, for over 24 hours, since reading Tim’s comment. (Yes, I know this makes me strange, but what the hell! This is, after all, an intellectual history blog.)

So, let’s begin by, as the modish say, “unpacking” the degree to which liberalism and relativism are intertwined. Certainly, relativism became the norm in twentieth-century liberal circles as represented by progressive education. For example, by the 1970s, in social studies, students were increasingly challenged to clarify their own values, independent of those instilled by their parents and churches. A popular anthropology curriculum created for elementary students by psychologist Jerome Bruner in the early 1970s—MACOS, or, “Man: A Course of Study”—exemplified liberal cultural relativism. During a MACOS unit students examined the Netsilik Eskimo culture, including their practice of killing the elderly, in order to understand, yet not judge, cultural differences. Such curriculum reform might be thought of as the liberal institutionalization of what historian Christopher Shannon refers to as “the anthropological consensus.”

Certainly conservative critics conceptualized the liberal ethos as relativistic. In fact, such a conflation was a culture wars pastime. Allan Bloom’s (or Saul Bellow’s) classic The Closing of the American Mind, at its most explicit, was an angry denunciation of relativism in all its forms: philosophic, moral, cultural, and educational. In Illiberal Education, a culture wars text almost as famous as Closing, Dinesh D’Souza applied an anti-relativist framework to a critique of the liberal, multicultural curriculum, which taught students, in D’Souza’s words, “justice is simply the will of the stronger party; that standards and values are arbitrary, and the ideal of the educated person is largely a figment of bourgeois white male ideology.” In her non-ironically titled book, Telling the Truth, Lynne Cheney followed this well-worn path by critiquing postmodernists, whom doubled as liberals in Cheney’s genealogy, for going “far beyond the ideas that have shaped modern scholarship—that we should think of the truth we hold today as tentative and partial, recognizing that it may require rethinking tomorrow in light of new information and insight—to the view that there is no truth.”

Both New Leftists (as what I would consider radical or postmodern liberals) and their mirror opposites, neoconservatives, certainly understood there to be a close relationship between cultural liberalism and relativism. In 1968, Theodore Roszak wrote the following: “The counter culture is the embryonic cultural base of New left politics, the effort to discover new types of community, new family patterns, new sexual mores, new kinds of livelihood, new aesthetic forms, new personal identities on the far side of power politics, the bourgeois home, and the Protestant work ethic.” Even though she was diametrically opposed to his prescriptions, neoconservative Gertrude Himmelfarb could not have agreed more with Roszak’s description of the relationship between values and politics. Her favorable interpretations of the Victorians were premised on similar theoretical grounds: “This is the final lesson we may learn from the Victorians: that the ethos of a society, its moral and spiritual character, cannot be reduced to economic, material, political, or other factors, that values—or, better yet, virtues—are a determining factor in their own right; so far from being a ‘reflection,’ as the Marxist says, of the economic realities, they are themselves, as often as not, the crucial agent in shaping those realities.” Neoconservatives like Himmelfarb were the best critics of the antinomian spirit of the 1960s, of postmodernism and its attendant cultural turn, of modern liberalism insofar as it attached itself to relativism.

In thus thinking about neoconservatism as the flip side of the New Left, the persuasion should also be historically situated in relation to Corey Robin’s representatives of “the reactionary mind.” Robin considers conservatism “a meditation on—and theoretical rendition of—the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.” Neoconservatives best articulated this post-1960s conservative reaction, especially insofar as they were able to intuit the connections between political movements like feminism and antinomian countercultural currents. For Himmelfarb, postmodern culture was brutish and coarse, a pale reflection of Victorian culture, which evinced, as Robin puts it, “the excellence of a world where the better man commands the worse.” In a recent blog post by Robin, where he responds to the latest among his legion of interlocutors, he builds on the close connection between politics and epistemology for Burke:

(Video) What Intellectual History Teaches Us: A Conversation w/ Quentin Skinner (The Governance Podcast Ep6)

The real threat lurking beneath the revolutionary assault on history, to Burke’s mind, is not anarchy or disorder; it’s weightlessness, the—to be sure, avant la lettre—proverbial emptiness and existential nausea of modernity that later theorists like Tocqueville, Nietzsche, and Schmitt will lament. And while that sense of weightlessness is by no means exclusive to the right, the connections that Burke draws between it and the antinomian forces of egalitarian revolution is. (“This is one among the revolutions which have given splendour to obscurity,” Burke writes in the Reflections, “and distinction to undiscerned merit.” Revolution flattens the world by pressing its extremities of high and low together; inequality keeps them apart, endowing the world with texture and depth.)

So what can we take from this? That plenty of people, on both left and right, conceptualize epistemology and political ideology as correlatives. And that many such people think relativistic epistemologies trend politically liberal. But not everyone agrees. This is a very old debate, of course, that goes as far back, well, as philosophy. In terms of twentieth-century U.S. intellectual history, the epistemology-political ideology debate was important in relation to ferment about fascism and communism, as I show in my first book, Education and the Cold War. Here’s a passage from my introduction (where I borrow heavily from Edward Purcell’s brilliant and underrated book, The Crisis of Democratic Theory):

————–

The intellectual crisis [of the Cold War] took on heightened perplexity when theorists increasingly debated one another across analytical terrains, blurring the unstable boundaries that had traditionally guarded seemingly separate intellectual spheres. Because American thinkers wondered if democracy could survive the tumult of their times, they attempted to reformulate democratic theory by framing political ideology and epistemology as correlatives. In other words, intellectuals conflated their theories on the ways in which people organized their thinking on political matters (ideology) with their conceptions about the foundation, scope, and validity of knowledge (epistemology).

(Video) What is Intellectual History and Why Does it Matter?

As historian Edward A. Purcell, Jr. has shown, before World War II, American social thinkers fell into two deeply divided camps: scientific naturalists, including John Dewey and other pragmatists, who emphasized experimentation and empirical study, and philosophic rationalists such as University of Chicago President Robert Hutchins [and his friend Mortimer Adler], who prioritized models of absolute truth. According to Purcell, a “neo-Aristotelian revival” produced an invigorated movement of rationalist philosophers who believed “human reason could discover certain immutable metaphysical principles that explained the true nature of reality.” In opposition to such an epistemological position, the scientific naturalists, in rejecting the existence of a priori truths, argued that “metaphysics was merely a cover for human ignorance and superstition.”

In this anxious climate, both sides of the prewar theoretical bifurcation—what Purcell calls a “crisis in democratic theory”—framed their epistemological positions as the appropriate concomitants of political democracy. Furthermore, they argued their opponents were in cahoots with totalitarianism. In other words, naturalists like Dewey argued that the rigid rationalist framework was consistent with political absolutism in its hostility to intellectual change, flexibility, and relativity. In contrast, rationalists like Hutchins contended that the naturalist refusal to prioritize certain principles as universally true or intrinsically superior helped breed a cultural relativism that paved the way for political forms of nihilism, including fascism.

By the beginning of the Cold War, this crisis was seemingly resolved in what Purcell terms the “relativist theory of democracy,” a stripped-down version of Dewey’s pragmatism in which democracy was made normative to America. This relativist theory of democracy blended what its practitioners believed were the best elements of naturalism, especially a faith in the empirical social sciences, with a co-opted version of rationalism, particularly a Platonic belief that American democracy was an end in itself. Although the relativist theorists of democracy considered themselves pragmatists in their attention to means, pragmatism as an identifiable philosophical radicalism, personified by Dewey in its aggressive and reform-oriented form, faded from view. Rather than critique democracy as it existed, relativist theorists assumed that American society was the democratic ideal. The status quo became an end in itself as intellectuals focused their labors on political stability.

But despite the fact that the relativist theory of democracy seemingly represented a consensus in the realm of political ideology, it never resolved deep-seated epistemological rifts. If epistemology and political ideology were indeed intertwined, an implicit assumption made by most postwar intellectuals, the relativist theory of democracy won broad acceptance in U.S. political culture because of its adherence to a naturalist or pragmatic epistemology. It was seen as an ethical alternative to “totalitarianism,” a concept that encompassed monolithic enemies old and new—Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia—because it was epistemologically opposed to totalitarianism. As the Nazis and Soviets represented epistemological and political absolutism, the United States came to signify epistemological and political democracy, defined by the traits of flexibility, pluralism, and diversity. Thus, democratic relativists committed their intellectual energies to preserving the American status quo. Brought to its logical conclusion, the relativist theory of democracy became a philosophical rationale for Cold War liberalism.

(Video) Panel 4: Decolonising Intellectual History

Even if there was a political resolution in the form of the relativist theory of democracy, the epistemological differences that divided the American mind before the war were never resolved. The arguments made by partisans of the 1930s battles with regards to their opponents’ epistemological relation to Nazism were also made in the Cold War context. For example, rationalists and traditionalist conservatives maintained that epistemological relativism left the back door open to Soviet totalitarianism. They argued that, because people inherently believed in truth, they would, in a state of confusion, seek out the communist grand narrative as an alternative to their own intellectual society’s failures to offer them a non-relativist worldview. However, due to the fact that the Cold War captured naturalism and made it acceptable to the American elites who funded social scientific research, rationalists sought new venues to voice their displeasure with naturalist relativism. The Cold War rationalists, and other counter-progressives, especially conservatives, formed their arguments in the context of the educational shouting matches of the early Cold War.

—————–

The supposed relationship between theoretical forms of relativism and political nihilism, fascism, even Nazism, returned to the forefront of academic discourse in the 1980s thanks to the political backgrounds of Paul de Man and Martin Heidegger. The scandal over the late Yale University Professor Paul de Man, the most famous deconstructionist this side of Derrida, served for conservatives as prima facie evidence of the ties between relativism and nihilism. For his critics, de Man’s philosophy seemed, in retrospect, an excuse for anti-Semitic articles he wrote for a Belgian newspaper during World War II. Heidegger’s Nazism, a fact that had always more or less darkened American Heidegger discourse, became even more paramount during the culture wars largely due to the de Man affair, and due to the growing degree to which American cultural theorists cited Heidegger as an influence. Martin Woessner explains the larger implications of the affair in his book Heidegger in America: “If the scandals showed that de Man and Heidegger had politicized, respectively, literary criticism and philosophy, then their intellectual heirs, including most notably Derrida, who had ties to both figures, but also all those who pledged allegiance to theory or postmodernism more generally, were compelled to explain—or explain away—such Faustian dealings.” In short, the scandals got to the heart of American fears about modernity: could people be good without foundations? For those who said no, Heidegger’s Nazism and de Man’s anti-Semitism were the smoking guns.

Of course, only specious logic allowed these smoking guns to serve as conclusive evidence that relativism, liberal or not, was a gateway drug to fascism. Which is why so many American thinkers agreed with Richard Rorty, that famous anti-epistemologist who erected conceptual brackets between politics and philosophy. Rorty might have had abiding interests in both Trotsky and orchids, to use his memorable metaphors for politics and philosophy, but that doesn’t mean the two had anything to do with one another.

(Video) Reshaping the Baton - The enduring relevance of intellectual history

The fact that plenty of non-relativists align themselves to the political left, and are highly critical of relativism, an intramural debate on the left goes back at least to Randolph Bourne’s “Twilight of Idols,” (1917) where Bourne argued Dewey’s support for American entry into WWI was a consequence of his standard-less philosophical presuppositions, says something about Rorty’s claims. The political anarchist Noam Chomsky is anything but a philosophical anarchist. Chomsky is as rationalist as they come, in his linguistics and in his political thinking. His famous debate with Michel Foucault about human nature (notice the lack of ironic quotation marks) is a famous example of this. There are also the Marxist perspectivalists deeply critical of postmodernists: Terry Eagleton, David Harvey, and Fredric Jameson. This divide is given life by the gender debates between poststructuralists like Judith Butler, who famously argued that gender, even sex, is performative all the way down, and feminist thinkers like Nancy Fraser and Seyla Benhabib, who argued that standards based on sex were necessary to achieve justice.

Timothy Brennan’s book Wars of Position, an intriguing defense of leftist Hegelianism, is highly critical of the philosophical anarchism that has gone by the name of “theory” since 1975. Brennan argues against most of those who pass as cultural theorists, “whose views, long taken to be part of the cultural Left, are in some variants at least openly and not just ludically identical to those expressed within American and European neoliberalism.” In other words, like the other Marxist perspectivalists, he argues that the extreme relativism or antifoundationalism of postmodern thinkers works perfectly alongside the “all that is solid melts into air” culture of capitalism.

Do these leftist anti-relativists prove Rorty right? Are orchids and Trotsky completely unrelated? Or rather do they prove wrong those who think political liberalism and epistemological relativism are correlatives? Is anti-relativism a better mode of thinking if one wishes to resist capitalism? How do you relate epistemology to political ideology? Are they relatable? A lot of questions need to be answered.

FAQs

What is intellectual history summary? ›

Intellectual history (also the history of ideas) is the study of the history of human thought and of intellectuals, people who conceptualize, discuss, write about, and concern themselves with ideas.

What is intellectual history PDF? ›

Intellectual history could be defined as a branch of historiography whose object of study. focuses on the analysis of ideas, thinkers and intellectual currents. As conceived by. historians, this discipline bears obvious parallels with the "Stories of Philosophy", although it is closer to the History of Ideas.

How is intellectual history different for the history of ideas? ›

Intellectual history resists the Platonist expectation that an idea can be defined in the absence of the world, and it tends instead to regard ideas as historically conditioned features of the world which are best understood within some larger context, whether it be the context of social struggle and institutional ...

What do you understand by the idea of history? ›

History is the study of change over time, and it covers all aspects of human society. Political, social, economic, scientific, technological, medical, cultural, intellectual, religious and military developments are all part of history.

Why is political history important? ›

Global and social problems are primarily resolved in the sphere of politics, and the tension between the past and the future is crucial for contemporary changes. Political history provides the tools to understand and critically assess many contemporary problems and changes.

What is an intellectual idea? ›

In general, abstract intellectual concepts are those concepts that are not simply a generalization of the attributes of physical objects and experiences, but rather concepts that do not have—and could not have—distinct physical representation in the world.

What is cultural and intellectual history? ›

The study of intellectual and cultural history is the study of ideas and beliefs in their historical context.

What is intellectual background? ›

1 of or relating to the intellect, as opposed to the emotions. 2 appealing to or characteristic of people with a developed intellect. intellectual literature. 3 expressing or enjoying mental activity.

What is the political history? ›

Political history is the narrative and survey of political events, ideas, movements, organs of government, voters, parties and leaders. It is closely related to other fields of history, including diplomatic history, constitutional history, social history, people's history, and public history.

What is the intellectual culture? ›

Intellectual Culture aims to clarify thinking about the urban and rural environment through text-led research in the history, theory, and aesthetics of architecture and the city.

What concept emerged during the intellectual revolution? ›

The Enlightenment, like the Scientific Revolution, began in Europe. Taking place during the 17th and 18th centuries, this intellectual movement synthesized ideas concerning God, reason, nature, and humanity into a worldview that celebrated reason.

During which period of history did intellectual progress develop in case of language? ›

Renaissance of the 12th century.

Why is the study of history important essay? ›

History helps us understand change. It records and helps people understand successes and failures. Through these studies people can learn about change and how others are affected by it. It shows patterns of behaviour or events in the past and their outcome which can help us avoid similar outcomes in the future.

What is history and why it is important to study our history? ›

Through history, we can learn how past societies, systems, ideologies, governments, cultures and technologies were built, how they operated, and how they have changed. The rich history of the world helps us to paint a detailed picture of where we stand today.

Why is it important to study history? ›

Studying history allows us to observe and understand how people and societies behaved. For example, we are able to evaluate war, even when a nation is at peace, by looking back at previous events. History provides us with the data that is used to create laws, or theories about various aspects of society.

How are history and politics related? ›

Whereas History is a chronological record of all events and developments, Political Science is interested only in those facts which had an impact on the nature and functioning of the state system and governments of various states. Political Science makes use of some selected historical facts.

Who said history is the politics of the past? ›

During the first half of the 20th century most historians would have agreed with the maxim attributed to Sir John Seeley that: 'History is past politics; and politics present history'.

Why do we study history and political education? ›

History provides a background for Political Education. The two subjects both deal with humanity and have relationship with society in terms of social, political and economic set up. The only difference is that History deals with past events while Political Education deals mainly with the current issues.

What is the history of intellectual property? ›

The modern concept of intellectual property developed in England in the 17th and 18th centuries. The term "intellectual property" began to be used in the 19th century, though it was not until the late 20th century that intellectual property became commonplace in the majority of the world's legal systems.

What is the importance of intellectual property? ›

Intellectual property protection is critical to fostering innovation. Without protection of ideas, businesses and individuals would not reap the full benefits of their inventions and would focus less on research and development.

What are some intellectual activities? ›

Additional intellectual wellness activities
  • Explore current events.
  • Read a book.
  • Attend a lecture.
  • Watch an educational show or listen to an educational podcast.
  • Learn a new language.
  • Travel somewhere new.
  • Play brain games such as activities found on BrainBashers.com and Braingle.com.
Sep 16, 2015

What role does history take in the study of society? ›

Through the study of history we can develop a feel for the way in which society will develop in the future. History helps one to understand the immense complexity of our world and therefore enables one to cope with the problems and possibilities of the present and future. History provides us with a sense of identity.

What is the importance of knowing one's culture history and environment? ›

It gives you a chance to understand traditions that are specific to your ancestors. You can gain a historical perspective of your family and culture, including details about your heritage that are unique. Some of the information gathered will be based on environmental factors and others on genetic factors.

What are the elements of culture and how can historians use culture to analyze the past? ›

What are the elements of culture and how can historians use culture to analyze the past? Social institution, values, beliefs, religion, customs & tradition. Culture can be used to analyze the past by getting a better understanding of the norm/reality back then.

Is the belief that history can be described in terms of ideas what people thought and the intent behind their actions? ›

Historicism is an approach to explaining the existence of phenomena, especially social and cultural practices (including ideas and beliefs), by studying their history, that is, by studying the process by which they came about.

Who said all history is the history of thought? ›

“All history,” as R.G. Collingwood said, “is the history of thought.” One traditional view of history, now discarded, is that it is virtually synonymous with the history of ideas—history is composed of human actions; human actions have to be explained by intentions; and intentions cannot be formed without ideas.

What is called social history? ›

social history, Branch of history that emphasizes social structures and the interaction of different groups in society rather than affairs of state. An outgrowth of economic history, it expanded as a discipline in the 1960s.

Who is father of political history? ›

The antecedents of Western politics can be traced back to the Socratic political philosophers, such as Aristotle ("The Father of Political Science") (384–322 BC). Aristotle was one of the first people to give a working definition of political science.

What is the actual meaning of politics? ›

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.

What is politics explain in details? ›

Politics is the way that people living in groups make decisions. Politics is about making agreements between people so that they can live together in groups such as tribes, cities, or countries. In large groups, such as countries, some people may spend a lot of their time making such agreements.

How do you become an intellectual? ›

8 Ways to Increase Your Intellectual Capacity
  1. Expand your horizons. Expanding your horizons unlocks the world to you by introducing you to possibility. ...
  2. Be imaginative. ...
  3. Pleasure reading. ...
  4. Train your brain. ...
  5. Consistently learn. ...
  6. Physical activity. ...
  7. Get enough sleep. ...
  8. How you dress.
Nov 16, 2017

What means intelligent or intellectual man? ›

An intelligent person is someone, who has the capacity to respond to mental challenges, deduce logic, infer hints, and understand complex subject matter upon explanation.

What is the difference between being intelligent and being an intellectual? ›

Conclusion. Both intelligence and intellectual refer to our mental abilities. In a very simple sense, an intelligent person is able to learn and understand things quickly and easily, whereas an intellectual person is able to think and understand things, especially complicated ideas.

What do you think is the purpose of intellectual revolution? ›

The fundamental intellectual and humanitarian aim of inquiry would be to help humanity acquire wisdom - wisdom being the capacity to realize (apprehend and create) what is of value in life, for oneself and others, wisdom thus including knowledge and technological know-how but much else besides.

Who is called intellectual? ›

An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society, and who proposes solutions for the normative problems of society.

What are the three intellectual revolutions? ›

There are three characteristic features of this form of speculation. First, the world is a natural whole (that is, supernatural forces do not make things 'happen'). Second, there is a natural 'order' (that is, there are 'laws of nature'). Third, humans can 'discover' those laws.

What is the study of intellectual history? ›

Intellectual history (also the history of ideas) is the study of the history of human thought and of intellectuals, people who conceptualize, discuss, write about, and concern themselves with ideas.

What is intellectual history PDF? ›

Intellectual history could be defined as a branch of historiography whose object of study. focuses on the analysis of ideas, thinkers and intellectual currents. As conceived by. historians, this discipline bears obvious parallels with the "Stories of Philosophy", although it is closer to the History of Ideas.

Why is renaissance known as an intellectual movement? ›

Renaissance is known as an Intellectual Movement because it brought new developments in the fields of literature, religion, philosophy, politics, art and science.

How does the study of history help us long answer? ›

Studying history helps us understand and grapple with complex questions and dilemmas by examining how the past has shaped (and continues to shape) global, national, and local relationships between societies and people.

What are three most important reasons to study history? ›

Why Studying History is Important (and Why It Is Fun)
  • History helps us understand other cultures. ...
  • History helps us understand our own society. ...
  • History helps us understand our own identities. ...
  • History builds citizenship. ...
  • History gives us insight into present-day problems. ...
  • History builds reading and writing skills.
Nov 21, 2016

What is history in my own words? ›

History is the study of change over time, and it covers all aspects of human society. Political, social, economic, scientific, technological, medical, cultural, intellectual, religious and military developments are all part of history.

How is history related to political education? ›

History provides a background for Political Education. The two subjects both deal with humanity and have relationship with society in terms of social, political and economic set up. The only difference is that History deals with past events while Political Education deals mainly with the current issues.

What lessons can we learn from history? ›

Here we'll take a closer look at why history is important and explore why everyone should make it a point to study it in depth.
  • History helps us develop a better understanding of the world. ...
  • History helps us understand ourselves. ...
  • History helps us understand other people. ...
  • History teaches a working understanding of change.

What is intellectual history Harvard? ›

Intellectual history is a diverse and thriving field of inquiry that emphasizes the transformation of ideas, ideologies, intellectuals, and scholarly institutions over time. Harvard's Department of History is home to a great many intellectual historians.

What is intellectual and cultural history? ›

The study of intellectual and cultural history is the study of ideas and beliefs in their historical context.

What is intellectual background? ›

1 of or relating to the intellect, as opposed to the emotions. 2 appealing to or characteristic of people with a developed intellect. intellectual literature. 3 expressing or enjoying mental activity.

What is the intellectual culture? ›

Intellectual Culture aims to clarify thinking about the urban and rural environment through text-led research in the history, theory, and aesthetics of architecture and the city.

Videos

1. Law and Intellectual History Roundtable 2
(Cambridge History Faculty)
2. Political Economy and Intellectual History Roundtable 1
(Cambridge History Faculty)
3. Philosophy, Modernity, and Intellectual History, part 1 of 2
(Jasson Cordones)
4. An Intellectual History of Sovietology, with George Breslauer
(Monterey Summer Symposium on Russia)
5. The History of Philosophy, History of Ideas & Intellectual History
(Then & Now)
6. The Seeley Lectures, Cambridge. "New Direction in Political-Intellectual History" 1: The Anglo-Saxon
(Elias Palti)

Top Articles

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Lilliana Bartoletti

Last Updated: 01/07/2023

Views: 5251

Rating: 4.2 / 5 (53 voted)

Reviews: 92% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Lilliana Bartoletti

Birthday: 1999-11-18

Address: 58866 Tricia Spurs, North Melvinberg, HI 91346-3774

Phone: +50616620367928

Job: Real-Estate Liaison

Hobby: Graffiti, Astronomy, Handball, Magic, Origami, Fashion, Foreign language learning

Introduction: My name is Lilliana Bartoletti, I am a adventurous, pleasant, shiny, beautiful, handsome, zealous, tasty person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.