I love history. I think that one can learn much from it other than the actual facts one reads about it - we form [moral/ethical] values not just from experience, but through 'external' knowledge of others' experiences. Though when one, for example, reads 20th century history in comparison to 1st century history, humanity itself doesn't seem to have made that much progress: still lotsa wars, power struggles, political bullshit, strategic alliances... same old shit really, for different reasons. So, why hasn't our knowledge of history had any impact upon our actual human progress? I just don't gettit.

jamest wrote:I love history. I think that one can learn much from it other than the actual facts one reads about it - we form [moral/ethical] values not just from experience, but through 'external' knowledge of others' experiences. Though when one, for example, reads 20th century history in comparison to 1st century history, humanity itself doesn't seem to have made that much progress: still lotsa wars, power struggles, political bullshit, strategic alliances... same old shit really, for different reasons. So, why hasn't our knowledge of history had any impact upon our actual human progress? I just don't gettit.

because the lessons we take from history is to follow the methods of victors!!!!!!. Also history is states ideology, historians its chief priests.

cavarka9 wrote:

jamest wrote:I love history. I think that one can learn much from it other than the actual facts one reads about it - we form [moral/ethical] values not just from experience, but through 'external' knowledge of others' experiences. Though when one, for example, reads 20th century history in comparison to 1st century history, humanity itself doesn't seem to have made that much progress: still lotsa wars, power struggles, political bullshit, strategic alliances... same old shit really, for different reasons. So, why hasn't our knowledge of history had any impact upon our actual human progress? I just don't gettit.

because the lessons we take from history is to follow the methods of victors!!!!!!.

Hmm. Are we really that dumb?

Also history is states ideology, historians its chief priests.

Hmm. Are we really that dumb?

We have of course progressed in some ways (I'm still talking from a human perspective, as opposed to say a technological perspective). For instance, monarchies have given way to republics, generally. However, this hasn't made much difference regards war and political bullshitting, etc.. It's the same old shit expressed via a different format. For most of us, it still all equates to death, fear, suffering, poverty, distrust, hopelessness, etc. etc.. I don't, then, see any real lessons that have been learnt from history.

jamest wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

jamest wrote:I love history. I think that one can learn much from it other than the actual facts one reads about it - we form [moral/ethical] values not just from experience, but through 'external' knowledge of others' experiences. Though when one, for example, reads 20th century history in comparison to 1st century history, humanity itself doesn't seem to have made that much progress: still lotsa wars, power struggles, political bullshit, strategic alliances... same old shit really, for different reasons. So, why hasn't our knowledge of history had any impact upon our actual human progress? I just don't gettit.

because the lessons we take from history is to follow the methods of victors!!!!!!.

Hmm. Are we really that dumb?

Also history is states ideology, historians its chief priests.

Hmm. Are we really that dumb?

We have of course progressed in some ways (I'm still talking from a human perspective, as opposed to say a technological perspective). For instance, monarchies have given way to republics, generally. However, this hasn't made much difference regards war and political bullshitting, etc.. It's the same old shit expressed via a different format. For most of us, it still all equates to death, fear, suffering, poverty, distrust, hopelessness, etc. etc.. I don't, then, see any real lessons that have been learnt from history.

or you could just agree that they learnt to try become victorious because the lessons you are talking about will not be found in history books but by closing them and saying to themselves we are not repeating this. We will build something new.

also, i dont see anything dumb in those, they are pretty good reasons as to why states are successful.

Absolutely! We learn our failings above all else. That is how we make ourselves better.

Wow, that's quite some statement to say we've not improved since the 1st century.

When has Europe ever known a period of peace like it does at the moment? When has the world ever lost such a small percentage of its population to war as it has the last 50 years? How many 1st century international organisations were there established to try and keep the peace? Where is the 1st century equivalent of the UN intervening in Kosovo?

Something I hear a lot from people older than me is how things are going downhill since "their day". And sometimes the things they are bemoaning are just... mad. A current common one is bemoaning that one can no longer beat their children. Go back long enough and we'd be bemoaning an age where it was common to send children up chimneys. Compare issues world wide like racism or homophobia today... who could deny that at least in significant part of the world where a large element of the population reside that those issues are as good as they have ever been?

I don't think it's a difficult case to make that things are improving. Yes there are new threats (weapons of mass destruction for example) that the world has never had to face before. But the fact that they haven't been used all over the place is also unique in history. The question would be how much itself the study of history has played in that part. And I think there are certainly cases, positive cases where it can be seen. The immediate one that springs to mind is the United Nations, flawed as it is - I think it's still hard to deny (world government nutjobs aside) that it has been a positive influence. And its origins came from the study of how peace treaties and international relations worked in the past, the history and failings of the league of nations and where that itself came from.

History, like philosophy, is literature and we interpret it the way we want. It's just as easy to claim that we a progressing as it is to claim that we aren't.

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:History, like philosophy, is literature and we interpret it the way we want. It's just as easy to claim that we a progressing as it is to claim that we aren't.

so you agree that it is states ideology and historians its chief priests?

cavarka9 wrote:

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:History, like philosophy, is literature and we interpret it the way we want. It's just as easy to claim that we a progressing as it is to claim that we aren't.

so you agree that it is states ideology and historians its chief priests?

I like that way of understanding history, but it's not exhaustive.

cavarka9 wrote:

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:History, like philosophy, is literature and we interpret it the way we want. It's just as easy to claim that we a progressing as it is to claim that we aren't.

so you agree that it is states ideology and historians its chief priests?

Ideology and priests implies that it is doctrine that is being interpreted, however in the case of history it is facts. There in lies the distinction.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:History, like philosophy, is literature and we interpret it the way we want. It's just as easy to claim that we a progressing as it is to claim that we aren't.

so you agree that it is states ideology and historians its chief priests?

Ideology and priests implies that it is doctrine that is being interpreted, however in the case of history it is facts. There in lies the distinction.

it is interpretation of facts.

cavarka9 wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:History, like philosophy, is literature and we interpret it the way we want. It's just as easy to claim that we a progressing as it is to claim that we aren't.

so you agree that it is states ideology and historians its chief priests?

Ideology and priests implies that it is doctrine that is being interpreted, however in the case of history it is facts. There in lies the distinction.

it is interpretation of facts.

Yes. I just said that.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:
so you agree that it is states ideology and historians its chief priests?

Ideology and priests implies that it is doctrine that is being interpreted, however in the case of history it is facts. There in lies the distinction.

it is interpretation of facts.

Yes. I just said that.

state has its interests, victors write history.

cavarka9 wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Ideology and priests implies that it is doctrine that is being interpreted, however in the case of history it is facts. There in lies the distinction.

it is interpretation of facts.

Yes. I just said that.

state has its interests, victors write history.

True for when the state interprets history, not when disinterested parties do. You just need to be mindful of the motivations for the interpretations before you decide what to believe. Were they academic or political? This is even true for historical interpretations. When reading historical accounts of Roman conquests, you can believe that much of it is political and weigh it as such.

This does not mean that nothing can be learned from it. Much of what we enjoy today is built on historical study and discovery. Much of our own philosophical and ethical values required kick starts from the likes of, Plato, the democracy of Athens, evolution. In fact, it is history that lifts us up above the childish reasoning of our youth as a species, into higher levels of enlightenment. Religion's own history will be its undoing.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

it is interpretation of facts.

Yes. I just said that.

state has its interests, victors write history.

True for when the state interprets history, not when disinterested parties do. You just need to be mindful of the motivations for the interpretations before you decide what to believe. Were they academic or political? This is even true for historical interpretations. When reading historical accounts of Roman conquests, you can believe that much of it is political and weigh it as such.

This does not mean that nothing can be learned from it. Much of what we enjoy today is built on historical study and discovery. Much of our own philosophical and ethical values required kick starts from the likes of, Plato, the democracy of Athens, evolution. In fact, it is history that lifts us up above the childish reasoning of our youth as a species, into higher levels of enlightenment. Religion's own history will be its undoing.

What's a disinterested party?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

it is interpretation of facts.

Yes. I just said that.

state has its interests, victors write history.

True for when the state interprets history, not when disinterested parties do. You just need to be mindful of the motivations for the interpretations before you decide what to believe. Were they academic or political? This is even true for historical interpretations. When reading historical accounts of Roman conquests, you can believe that much of it is political and weigh it as such.

This does not mean that nothing can be learned from it. Much of what we enjoy today is built on historical study and discovery. Much of our own philosophical and ethical values required kick starts from the likes of, Plato, the democracy of Athens, evolution. In fact, it is history that lifts us up above the childish reasoning of our youth as a species, into higher levels of enlightenment. Religion's own history will be its undoing.

disinterested parties funded by the govt?.
not to mention individual bias, tribal bias etc. As far as plato etc are concerned, surely that is the content in historical sources and not history of these sources.

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Yes. I just said that.

state has its interests, victors write history.

True for when the state interprets history, not when disinterested parties do. You just need to be mindful of the motivations for the interpretations before you decide what to believe. Were they academic or political? This is even true for historical interpretations. When reading historical accounts of Roman conquests, you can believe that much of it is political and weigh it as such.

This does not mean that nothing can be learned from it. Much of what we enjoy today is built on historical study and discovery. Much of our own philosophical and ethical values required kick starts from the likes of, Plato, the democracy of Athens, evolution. In fact, it is history that lifts us up above the childish reasoning of our youth as a species, into higher levels of enlightenment. Religion's own history will be its undoing.

What's a disinterested party?

It means Impartial. One who is not invested in a particular outcome. Academic.

cavarka9 wrote:disinterested parties funded by the govt?.

If they are disinterested, it doesn't matter who they are funded by, but even so, government's are not the only ones funding research.

not to mention individual bias, tribal bias etc.

My argument isn't for intellectual laziness. As I said before, know your sources and you will find yourself closer to the truth.

As far as plato etc are concerned, surely that is the content in historical sources and not history of these sources.

It is with the other two that I mentioned and for which you have left out. As well as the volumes of other examples I, myself, didn't include. Much can be learned from the millennium of wars, peace, the mistakes of our past and the truly novel advances which we have managed to forget.

I think it is much easier point to ask yourself; have we learned anything meaningful from history?

However, if your answer is "no", then I would have to chalk you up as a absolutist pessimist, and agree that we will never agree.

have we learnt anything meaningful from recorded sources, yes we have. But imagine there were autobiographies from everyone with in a generation of your own life and you read them of your own choice, would you learn lessons from these contemporaries which might fill all that you might learn from history, will you have learned any lesser or more. If it is much the same, then may be we havent learnt any thing new or novel than we would have had we talked to each other more often.