A few quotes to consider:
· Those who do not remember
the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana.
· History is a set of lies
agreed upon.
Napoleon
Bonaparte.
·We are not makers of history. We
are made by history.
Martin
Luther King.
As far as my conclusion is concerned
you may query is it really about truth as I suggest? Is the truth possible?
Truth telling.
I believe history in a nutshell boils
down to our ability in truth telling. That’s improving in modernity given
the ability to validate writers based on styles, archaeological references
and carbon dating. That allows historians to modify history as a
consequence of these improved historical analysis tools.
At the same time, paradoxically, we
seem to be less interested in the subject now that potentially such tools shed
more light on our past so much better than previous generations?
Hence, regardless of whether or not
an accurate linear progression of events and their probable causes is best or
just a mode of investigation or speculative or analytical approach is
undertaken, the historical philosopher’s quest, in my view, must be to
discern as far as possible the truth.
Mythical narratives
That doesn’t mean we dismiss myths
that inform us of how cultures attempt to make sense of existence but we do
need to know that they are myths in the first instance.
In this way lessons can be
gained for future reference and enrich one's sense of wonderment to
promote discussions. In a nutshell we need to determine the truth from
whatever best tools complement your narrative.
History conducive to existence
However history can be used to
support particular aspects such as was talked about by Nietzsche e.g.
For instance Nietzsche constructs
three forms of history that can be conducive to life: monumental history,
antiquarian history, and critical history. The first favours myths and
action and the belief in great men and events. The second can help to affirm
life through an affirmation of one's roots, traditions, and identity. The third
can be used to liberate those who feel oppressed by tradition. Nietzsche also
suggests remedies for the exaggerated concern with history in the nineteenth century
that is, emphasizing the unhistorical and the over-historical. With the latter,
which is closely akin to the metaphysical, Nietzsche meant that which he
believed transcends history, such as religion and art.
Although Truth for Nietzsche
might be considered a relative matter, dependent upon our interpretations- at
first glance we might be inclined to say he is a postmodernist which however he
isn’t. His idea of truth depends upon whichever interpretation prevails at a
given time which is a function of power. Page 45 - What Nietzsche
Really Said - Solomon / Higgins.
A historian in truth ideally aims to
discern the prevailing thinking that permeated society then and to talk about
the veracity of claims based on the best analytical tools available.
First early roots and emergence of
the concept of eternal recurrence
But prior to civilization and
stretching back as far back as the great migrations (triggered by severe
climatic conditions) the oral history tradition formed their cultures which was
integral to ensure meaning could be attributed to their existence. Anthropologists
now believe we came very close at one stage to extinction, as a
consequence of severe climatic change. Subsequently in the aftermath it's
very likely wisdom streams (in whatever early conscious states they
existed) filtered through into the cultures of the first nation’s people.
Those ideas, underpinned by survival, later on formed the deterministic ideas
of eternal recurrence we associate today in indigenous communities throughout
the world.
Discerning the truth from divergent
sources inclusive of the diaries and everyday accounts of ordinary people and
oral sources.
In this respect many Historians, up
until fairly recently did not properly understand First Nations people and
their rich culture in Australia. I vividly recall descriptions of
First Nations people from my early school books depicted as small groups of
nomadic hunter gatherers, solely reliant on stone implements and spears whose
only shelter from the elements were temporary ones, constructed from
branches and the bark of trees. Whilst that may have been true, by way of
necessity for the more arid areas, they occupied, it was certainly not so
for the more densely populated areas in around the coastal areas where game was
more plentiful and farming was undertaken. Evidence exists of what must have
been similar to maize harvested and stored in certain areas. We also
have evidence of stone buildings where they stayed during the season of
eel farming.
The significance of dreamtime stories
which gave meaning to successive generations and ensured an ongoing
affinity with the land was mostly overlooked, as was their complex
system of law, extensive kinship and spirituality.
Hence, from this multiplicity of
ideas the reality, I believe, is for the modern historians to aim
to discern the truth from whatever sources are reasonably available and
particularly from the diaries and everyday accounts of ordinary people and any
relevant oral sources. Early historians in Australia could have avoided such
inaccurate accounts if they consulted more widely with First Nations people.
The same was true for early anthropologists who had no idea of the structures
of skin types within clans and nations that underpinned their existence.
I suggest this view of history
applies equally to nations throughout the world but now is being
reversed as historians are so much better equipped to discern
the truth and provide more accurate conclusions now on ancient times than those
only a few hundred years after such events occurred to which they
sought to describe.
The reason being advances in
science and translation, writing styles and so forth.
The History wars
But of course such direct sources are
to be complemented by those luminaries who likewise seek the truth.
Hence, perhaps it is not surprising
we have the history wars, as those respective warriors see themselves as having
all the answers from prior sources whose sparse resources see history through
the lens of the colonists. History then in effect, needs to aim to be a true
representation to see ourselves then as we were, in the context of that era to
potentially underpin lessons learned for the future.
A failure to question immorality.
I once, in an effort to better
understand the reason why slavery persisted for so long (and continues even in
modern day derivatives) undertook an examination of its history.
I attempted to trace what was talked
about and evolved firstly paradoxically principally as civilisation flourished
in ancient Greece, from a factual perspective to why it continued on for so
long notwithstanding its detractors.
Why do such eminent thinkers and
nations founded on freedom and democratic principles either endorse slavery or
turn a blind eye to it. ?
How is it possible to reduce humans
to the status of goods that could be bought and sold in markets or acquired in
conflict?
I found the failure to question
slavery’s immorality (as in seeking the truth) was the dominant theme that
emerged from the multiplicity of other reasons. One finds errors in
translations, confused thinking and constraints on the authors imposed by
rulers at various times, making face value assessments very risky. So too was
the idea that those enslaved will have their suffering rewarded in the
next life- to justify acceptance of their current plight.
However Aristotle’s position was
somewhat nuanced as he talks about slaves, who by their nature are best ruled
by masters. What he said is ‘those human beings that are by nature suitable
to be ruled, but (are) unwilling (is) by nature just.
He tells us why ‘those who
are different (from other men) as the soul from body or man from beast and
their work is the use of the body, and this is the best that can come from
them, are slaves by nature.’
Ironically
Aristotle left instructions on his death for all of his slaves to be
freed. This practice was known as Manumission and for the few there was
always the prospect that, at any time, owners could grant freedom. The reason
for manumission was complex and varied. It could be purely benevolent as was
most likely in the case of Aristotle by way of gratitude as prescribed in his
will. It was also used to incentivize slaves to work harder, given the prospect
of release as a reward.
His ideas on slavery were virtually
unchallenged for thousands of years.
Aquinas
then endorsed this same idea that served to justify its existence and help
foster that ongoing ambivalent attitude to its immorality. This was also true
of most of the enlightenment philosophers who failed to confront the immorality
of slavery whilst endorsing freedom as a right to be drafted in a
constitution.
Simply put, my conclusion was that its continuity occurred because the
obfuscation created by a concoction of ideas which formed the basis of later
hideous arguments was a significant contribution augmented by greed and
ignorance.
But we need to rescue any idea that
truth is relative to the extent truth and truth telling is irrelevant - rather
its essential just as it is for historians.
In short, truth is far from empty, as
Davidson claimed; and the theory of truth is not “a set of truisms,” as J.L.
Austin said scornfully. Truth is rich, and the theory of truth complex. This is
precisely what we might expect, as the nature of truth touches on what is most
distinctive about us. Of all the creatures in the universe who experience what
is the case, we are the only ones who make explicit what is the case, and
assert that it is the case. We are explicit, or truth-bearing and
falsehood-bearing animals, and to see truth truly is to see ourselves
truly.
Quote from Raymond Tallis in Philosophy
Now.
Turning to the activity
Activity
So then, what is history?
I think history is the attempted
reflection of how we see ourselves at various points of time or events and
their causes.
Is
it something which moves us along? A time-stream in which we float, imagining
we act freely but in reality not with any directional control?
The extent we learn from it and move
along as truth seekers is a moot point. That should be the aim but often
is not the reality
A truth seeking narrative does yield
life changing outcomes and history teaches us when we go off the rails.
Can
you do history personally?
That’s available to everyone.
What’s
positive about the way you do science?
Archeological and improvements in
translation and research methodologies means today we are in a far better
position in modernity to much better understand people’s views
today than in much earlier period.
Or
is there something about history which needs a different approach?
Carbon dating and a host of other
tools support a rewriting or confirmation of many historical events and their
truth. The narrative on truth seeking underpins an adaptive approach by
historians
Are
there laws of history as there are physical laws in science?
The only concept of a law rests with
the idea of eternal recurrence analogous to the Hindus religion.
If
there are laws of history, if we know them and can apply them, then we should
be able to predict the future, don’t you think?
Certainly one might stretch
the imagination and talk about that possibility given the idea of eternal
recurrence and the nature of energy that goes from one state to
another but never actually disappears.
Lots
of interesting ideas can ensue along those lines.
References
Please
look for details on Toynbee at https://www.britannica.com
Psychohistory- a derivation.
Patrick Lancaster Gardiner, Emeritus Fellow in Philosophy, Magdalen
College, University of Oxford. Author of the Nature of Historical Explanation
https://www.britannica.com/contributor/Patrick-Lancaster-Gardiner/1025
Stanford University
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/
History Wars
No comments:
Post a Comment