RE: Is history progress?

RE: Is history progress? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Jawero -> RE: Is history progress? (4/30/2011 5:50:10 PM)
History is just that.....His story. "Until lions can talk, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter." Look up the real story of Thanksgiving and compare it to what we were taught in school........

thompsonx -> RE: Is history progress? (4/30/2011 5:57:04 PM)
quote: "Until lions can talk, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter." I tend to agree with this in most cases. The exception would be "a boy and his dog"...the only thing don johnson ever did that was worth a shit.

thompsonx -> RE: Is history progress? (4/30/2011 6:15:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Of course, when you are talking history, you are talking the interpretation of past events. I have seen circumstances where "water will flow up hill" but most of the time it goes downhill =follows the path of least resistance=most logical. The interpretation of facts typically should follow a logical course. If a paticular source says that at a particular battle there were x many combatants all one need do is validate the logistics for x many people (food, clothing , shelter, armament etc. if there is not the necessary infrastructure to support such a claim then the claim is not valid....but beyond the battles and who was king at any particular time people still got laid,cheated on their spouses, cheated on their taxes,got drunk,kicked the dog and none of that has changed since we became sentient. That we have quisinarts and neuclear weapons are just acoutrements...los cabrones hay in todos los colores pero la pinoche siempre in la color rosa.[;)] Again, of course there are trends that flow through history, but that is such a broad conception, it extends beyond the scope of human existence. You need to narrow your focus and define what you mean by progress.

Real0ne -> RE: Is history progress? (4/30/2011 6:32:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Of course, when you are talking history, you are talking the interpretation of past events. Again, of course there are trends that flow through history, but that is such a broad conception, it extends beyond the scope of human existence. You need to narrow your focus and define what you mean by progress. I think even more importantly the data used. how many people even dreamed that eisenhauer single handedly was responsible for the deaths of well over 1million germans AFTER the war while they were in HIS Prison camp! His own holocaust! that story never makes the mainstream history books.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Is history progress? (4/30/2011 7:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jawero History is just that.....His story. "Until lions can talk, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter." Look up the real story of Thanksgiving and compare it to what we were taught in school........ You are so not getting what this poster is saying. History is literally a particular person's story. Unless and until that story can be backed up by credible witnesses, it's just that, a story. The historians job is to research, evaluate and interpret available data and form conclusions based on what can be verified, and what can be merely extrapolated.

thompsonx -> RE: Is history progress? (4/30/2011 7:34:10 PM)
quote: how many people even dreamed that eisenhauer single handedly was responsible for the deaths of well over 1million germans AFTER the war while they were in HIS Prison camp! His own holocaust! perhaps you would like to elucidate. that story never makes the mainstream history books. Winston churchill mentioned it in his six volumn tome on ww2

Brain -> RE: Is history progress? (4/30/2011 8:09:08 PM)
quote: Those who think so: what is the end goal, and who or what decides it? For me the end goal is to know what happened before the big bang and after we figure that out we can create a new end goal. This is what I think is the most important activity mankind is doing in addition to many other important things. As to who decides the end goal that is more difficult to answer. I think it depends on who has the money, intelligence, determination or persistence and motivation to get there. And even if someone or something has all that the end goal is in the eye of the beholder just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that's my opinion. I think the beholder in this case is mankind if this makes any sense. I think it's even more complicated than what I said above because other people will think the end goal is something else and their opinion is equally valid so it's quite likely your question is impossible to answer. quote: Those who disagree: does this mean there is no such thing as 'better'? only different. It can and should be progress or better because we should learn from the past but that doesn't always happen.

eihwaz -> RE: Is history progress? (4/30/2011 8:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain [...] It can and should be progress or better because we should learn from the past but that doesn't always happen. Those who learn from the past are less likely to repeat it.

Real0ne -> RE: Is history progress? (5/1/2011 10:42:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain quote: Those who think so: what is the end goal, and who or what decides it? For me the end goal is to know what happened before the big bang you first need to prove there was a big bang ya thank?

imperatrixx -> RE: Is history progress? (5/1/2011 3:44:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent For clarity's sake. The question is this: is human history one of progress, past and future? I didn't include 'inevitable' in my OP as progress could quite easily be a result of a random string of events (depending on point of view). Hope this helps. Human history is progress and regression. Look at the dark ages for an example - in Europe, roads crumble, literacy drops, previously known science and math is lost to a continent...yet the Arab world flourishes in architecture, trade, math, science, etc. Reversed in the latter half of the 20th century - Europe and North America push forth in progress, science, technology, social order, while the Arab world regresses to dark provincialism. As a whole, though, I'd say yes. Progress.

juliaoceania -> RE: Is history progress? (5/1/2011 3:47:27 PM)
There is a phrase for people who think history is a giant progression forward towards better and better outcomes, the phrase is teleological thinking

Aneirin -> RE: Is history progress? (5/1/2011 4:38:04 PM)
The dark ages are only called that because not much is known about the period, which could mean it either progressed or regressed or even just carried on as normal. Perhaps the writers of the time found nothing eventful to write about or even if they did, those histories were lost through anything that could have happened at the time. But as we depend so much on the written word, could it be we are missing much that is spoken. For many cultures the spoken word holds true.

Fellow -> RE: Is history progress? (5/1/2011 5:30:07 PM)
History is usually treated to be a cyclical process. The progress happens usually during short period of time (Renaissance last time). My feeling tells me we are nearing the end of dark ages. Hopefully progress will follow.

imperatrixx -> RE: Is history progress? (5/1/2011 5:48:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin The dark ages are only called that because not much is known about the period, which could mean it either progressed or regressed or even just carried on as normal. Perhaps the writers of the time found nothing eventful to write about or even if they did, those histories were lost through anything that could have happened at the time. But as we depend so much on the written word, could it be we are missing much that is spoken. For many cultures the spoken word holds true. or it could mean they did not know how to write. afaik at that time literacy was more or less found in high ranks of clergy. Kings and princes couldn't sign their name, much less write a history of events. Aside from that - roads crumbled. Buildings financed by Rome fell into ruin along with the empire. Trade routes were threatened by bandits. Latin split off into provincial tongues. That was not a time of progress. But it laid the foundations for the Renaissance, later the Enlightenment. In the seasons of progress consider it the winter - and what came after the spring. I see things in cycles like that...growth, apex, decay, rot that fertilizes new growth. Progress is measured comparing the seasons of growth, on the grand scheme. I don't think we're currently in a springtime season.

NorthernGent -> RE: Is history progress? (5/2/2011 2:27:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent For clarity's sake. The question is this: is human history one of progress, past and future? I didn't include 'inevitable' in my OP as progress could quite easily be a result of a random string of events (depending on point of view). Hope this helps. Human history is progress and regression. Look at the dark ages for an example - in Europe, roads crumble, literacy drops, previously known science and math is lost to a continent...yet the Arab world flourishes in architecture, trade, math, science, etc. Reversed in the latter half of the 20th century - Europe and North America push forth in progress, science, technology, social order, while the Arab world regresses to dark provincialism. As a whole, though, I'd say yes. Progress. Historians talk of a 12th century renaissance, including advances in art, literature, science etc. It is simply inaccurate to suggest Europe stood still during the dark ages, although the improvement wasn't as marked as the later renaissance. The problem was one of trade - a reference here to Marx's theory that the economy influences progress/history - the muslim world had trade nailed down and Europe had no way out with oceans all around, until, that is, Portuguese explorers resolved the problem. So, we did continue to progress during the dark ages, albeit at a slow rate of knots and lacking political freedom. In terms of political freedom, there is a trend towards individual liberty: Plato's time when people turned inwards for the answers, to the reformation involving breaking the catholic church's hold over learning, to applying reason to rule and the state etc. I would agree with you, on the whole history is progress. Does this mean there must be an end goal? Who or what decided it?

NorthernGent -> RE: Is history progress? (5/2/2011 2:45:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake Sure, we're more free and rational, although the bar was set pretty low back in the Stone Age. People would have believed all kinds of crazy things and been subject to the will of tribal leaders, and technological limitations would have constrained the options available to the average person in any case. If you can take a jet from Nairobi to Naples, or Newcastle, you have more freedom (in one important sense) than someone who can only walk across several miles of savannah in the same amount of time. And I would say that freedom and rationality have probably increased, at least in the West, even in the past 50 years. But freedom and rationality aren't everything. I wouldn't necessarily agree that increased choice and opportunities is akin to increased freedom, although 'freedom' is subjective, granted. And people continue to act in ways that are viewed as 'crazy' by many people - such as dropping atom bombs. quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake That's kind of my point - that sooner or later you hit the damn cul-de-sac, because there's a limit to what's knowable in principle. Philosophy may already have discovered all of the major logical possibilities in both ethics and metaphysics, in which case there's not much left for philosophers to do apart from filling in some details. I'd imagine that philosophers will tell you they really don't know, when being honest. Hegel attempted to resolve this problem by saying that philosophers concentrate solely on the part and therefore lack an understanding of the wider system e.g. idealists who believe that our minds are sufficient to explain the world versus materialists who believe the world can only be understood through the outer world. Hegel's solution? some spirit/force termed the absolute idea is driving the evolution of the world, and we are simply unaware of it; and we can understand people/ideas/objects only in relation to this absolute idea. In other words, clutching at straws, but as good as anything anyone has been able to come up with. And, Hume did a very good job of showing that our knowledge of the world is based on our experience, so it's safe to assume that subsequent generations will improve on our knowledge of the world.

DarkestDezirez -> RE: Is history progress? (5/2/2011 5:54:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain For me the end goal is to know what happened before the big bang and after we figure that out we can create a new end goal. This is what I think is the most important activity mankind is doing in addition to many other important things. If you accept the "big bang" hypothesis, you have to accept there was no "before", as you and I understand it, before it -- which doesn't really matter since there was no "here" either. At this point it helps to start taking some really powerful hallucinogens .... ;)

eihwaz -> RE: Is history progress? (5/2/2011 7:26:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There is a phrase for people who think history is a giant progression forward towards better and better outcomes, the phrase is teleological thinking Human culture is evolving. Evolution optimizes. On the other hand, evolution has no teleology (as far as anybody has been able to prove). History and human cultural evolution are interrelated: history both reflects and affects the evolution of human culture. So historical 'progress' could be evolutionary optimization.

juliaoceania -> RE: Is history progress? (5/2/2011 11:27:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There is a phrase for people who think history is a giant progression forward towards better and better outcomes, the phrase is teleological thinking Human culture is evolving. Evolution optimizes. On the other hand, evolution has no teleology (as far as anybody has been able to prove). History and human cultural evolution are interrelated: history both reflects and affects the evolution of human culture. So historical 'progress' could be evolutionary optimization. Evolution is not progress, it is change over time. It does not insinuate that there is some grand design of progress marching forward. There have been 5 major extinctions on planet earth, for various reasons. This means that evolution isn't unidirectional, it is instead multilinear. It has starts, and stops, and unproductive offshoots, etc etc etc. Human culture is similar in that there are many extinct cultures, they have failed for different reasons, there will be false starts, and abrupt stops. History, both recorded and that told to us in the archaeological record, shows us that we have had bottlenecks, empires rise and fall, we have even had different species of human beings (organisms from the sapien family) come and go the way of the dinosaur. We could be wiped off the planet tomorrow, and the cockroaches would take our place.... most people wouldn't see this as progress

NorthernGent -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 2:46:53 AM)
For those who believe there is no such thing as human progress, then it seems there is no such thing as 'better', only 'different'. And, if this is the case, then what is the point in having political beliefs, because, after all, there's no progress to work towards?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125