What is History and its relavence?

Author: Critical-Tim
Politics
History
Religion

Posts

Total: 33
Topic's author
#1
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
I'm not sure where I stand, currently I'm uncertain and wish someone to sway me one way or the other. Of course though, I will critically challenge a sway of either direction.

Here are my notes, some ideas may have changed since I wrote them, but I figure they will stimulate your thoughts and bring about a conversation.

 I believe on the importance of short-term History such as business decisions based on a company's past, but not in long-term history since the present environment is never the same as the past, making the past decision only a guestimation of what is appropriate for the present, not an assured prediction.

Here is my speculative definition:
History is (potentially) simply a propaganda made to inspire or strike pride in a nation's political, religious, or technological identity.


Here is a commonly recognized definition of history:
A nuanced and practical definition of history, acknowledging its complexities and multiple facets, could be articulated as follows:

History is the systematic study and interpretation of past events, cultures, and societies, aimed at understanding the complexities of human behavior, social structures, and the forces that have shaped the world. It encompasses a wide range of subjects, including economic, social, technological, and environmental aspects, beyond its traditional focus on politics, national pride, or religious identity. While history can be used to inspire or instill pride, its primary purpose is to provide a comprehensive, critical examination of the past, offering insights into the present and guiding considerations for the future. This approach recognizes the potential for multiple interpretations and the influence of historiography, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and analysis in discerning historical truths.
Firstly, history is not a systematic study but a documentation of historical events; a historian uses a systematic study of history.

Secondly, history is not complete with everyday documented, only what was selected as important; it is these events than are related to a nation's religious, political, or technological progression.

Thirdly, almost nothing of history is factual, it is primarily subjective interpretation. Even then the objective aspect of history can easily be skewed toward the people of power, especially in ancient times when only the elite could read and write while the people were oblivious to the documents recorded. Of the interpretations, what of it can be learned but an opinion. If I recorded that blue is the prettiest color the only conclusion to be derived is some ancient person thought blue was the prettiest color. This makes the practical application of learning from history is close to zero, since it is mostly opinions, and the minuscule objective evidence is potentially skewed.

Finally, even if by a miracle the history was interpreted in the same perspective as the author and the objective facts were true, the learning part of history requires drawing effects from cause, which also includes context. It is this context that is consistently changing in the present and never matching the past, making direct cause and effect impossible to be certain. This leaves us with a highly improbable potentially flawed and contextually different solution that may help interpret our future. It is from this I believe that we would do just as well with what we think is best given our intuition and present experience, effectively rendering history as a practically useless propagandic study.
#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
making the past decision only a guestimation of what is appropriate for the present, not an assured prediction.
The point is not to search for past decisions but to understand the mechanics of humanity, society, civilization, war, productivity and most importantly of all philosophy.

Understanding mechanics allows for predictions valid in future contexts, or for things present but not known. For example you can make predictions about where coal or oil will be found by understanding the mechanics of geology, but there is no way to understand the mechanics of geology without discovering millions of years of geological history.


Even then the objective aspect of history can easily be skewed toward the people of power, especially in ancient times when only the elite could read and write while the people were oblivious to the documents recorded.
How would you be aware of such skewing if no one studied history?
#3
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 5,414
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
We know nothing about history. They literally lie to us about current events. Now take those lies about current events 20 years ago. How they are lied about even more now. Once you get to 1000 years or more you are definitely looking at complete bullshit. It's now not o ly the original witnesses lying but their documents being destroyed and those who end th documents lying about what they meant and so on and so on. 

It's honestly just guesses at this point. Guesses that are definitely wrong. 
#4
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
History, like everything else, is nothing but a vast conspiracy with you at the center, the past is there to fool you, there are tremendous nefarious forces in the shadows and they are all focused all on you.

Only the conspiracy is real, only you are in the know.

It's on you to enlighten us, only you can tell us what is real, only you can tell us the truth, you must lead us out of the darkness.

That's how history works.
Topic's author
#5
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Understanding mechanics allows for predictions valid in future contexts, or for things present but not known. For example you can make predictions about where coal or oil will be found by understanding the mechanics of geology, but there is no way to understand the mechanics of geology without discovering millions of years of geological history.
I agree that history as a concept is an important and practical study, but the aspect that is taught in school is only that nations history from the founding including selective events. I'm curious if the history taught in school is practical, an indoctrination, or both, and if we even should care if it is indoctrination.

Even then the objective aspect of history can easily be skewed toward the people of power, especially in ancient times when only the elite could read and write while the people were oblivious to the documents recorded.
How would you be aware of such skewing if no one studied history?
This is where I would disagree. You could never know history is skewed by only reading history. I would imagine this is similar to determining whether a ruler is warped by comparing it to itself, you cannot. People are able to determine that the past was most probably skewed by comparing it to the present and how people act and socialize in our current time and then we place those ideas conceptually in the past and assume with best approximation that the past was skewed. My idea is that history is not useful in teaching its own flaws, it is the present that does this.
Topic's author
#6
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@WyIted
If we were to correctly understand how far skewed history is, we could approximate what it would have been correctly documented as; then, from this educated guess, we could construct an accurate description of the past, bacing our decisions off of it. Do you think history could have any practical application whatsoever if this correct understanding of the past was successful and could be known as true?
Topic's author
#7
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Sidewalker
History, like everything else, is nothing but a vast conspiracy with you at the center, the past is there to fool you, there are tremendous nefarious forces in the shadows and they are all focused all on you. Only the conspiracy is real, only you are in the know.
Not everything is a conspiracy, otherwise the conspiracy itself would be a conspiracy, making nothing a conspiracy, but then yet again this would be the conspiracy, leaving an endless logical cycle.

I disagree history is completely centered on the reader, as this would require a multicentric plot. Not everyone can be in focus at once, otherwise you wouldn't consider anyone to be in focus since focus is a relative standard.
#8
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 5,414
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you think history could have any practical application whatsoever if this correct understanding of the past was successful and could be known as true?
Yes, even now there is likely some practical utility. For example if you can read German than all the documents looking at the internal workings of the NAZI government will give insights into how the upper echelons of governments behave in general. 

For he most part it's going t be useless. Maybe understanding some stuff can help you sidestep brain washing. Like if you really understand history and have a good BS detector it would help you easily see that both Muhhamed and are clearly bullshit artists. Though it is definitely true in the latter it is not for sure with Muhhamed. Perhaps he was delusional, but more often than not he would write new shit in the Quran whenever he needed people to believe things that were very convenient for him to have them believe. 

My concern is going to be of taking the words of people in history and trusting them. For example witnesses or great grand kids of witnesses which I often the case. Their interpretations of stuff should meet  heavy criticism. So maybe I overstated my point about it being complete BS. 
Topic's author
#9
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@WyIted
I would go as far as saying everything in history is true if understood correctly. For example, someone tells you it is 10:00 o'clock when it is 11:00; after that, someone asks you what time it is and you truthfully tell, them I was told it is 10:00 o'clock. My point is truth can be found everywhere, though it is often ambiguous or impractical.
#10
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
You could never know history is skewed by only reading history. I would imagine this is similar to determining whether a ruler is warped by comparing it to itself, you cannot.
You assume there is only one account and no corroborating evidence. That is not the case.

In fact the accompaniment of archeology has proven skepticism of even single-account or myth-level history to be overdone. The existence of Troy or Nineveh come to mind.
Topic's author
#11
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You could never know history is skewed by only reading history. I would imagine this is similar to determining whether a ruler is warped by comparing it to itself, you cannot.
You assume there is only one account and no corroborating evidence. That is not the case.

In fact the accompaniment of archeology has proven skepticism of even single-account or myth-level history to be overdone. The existence of Troy or Nineveh come to mind.
I don't consider multiple accounts to be mainstream, only the offically accepted version, but I'm not saying the official or otherwise is more correct than the other.
It's hard to say what is actual accounts and what is tall tales spread by word of mouth.
#12
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
You could never know history is skewed by only reading history. I would imagine this is similar to determining whether a ruler is warped by comparing it to itself, you cannot.
You assume there is only one account and no corroborating evidence. That is not the case.

In fact the accompaniment of archeology has proven skepticism of even single-account or myth-level history to be overdone. The existence of Troy or Nineveh come to mind.
I don't consider multiple accounts to be mainstream, only the offically accepted version
There are no official versions of history, or at least none that mean anything. History follows the rules of any other science. There are those who will corrupt it for their agenda and those who will follow the dictates of reason.

#13
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,160
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
History serves no purpose if it is rewritten with each successive generation. The history that my children were taught in no way resembles even remotely what I was taught. We may as well be living in a different time line in two different dimensions. I gave up on history and discussing it, there is no point. The history I was taught and  studied no longer exists in any modern text book.
Topic's author
#14
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When you say there is no official version of history, does this include objective information like dates? Often there are not more than one written account of an event, especially in acient times when less people could read and write; what then if not the only source would be considered accepted history? I suppose when we are lucky enough to have multiple sources we still cannot know if they both were correct, only an increase in odds it is true if they align.

I guess the real question is, can history of only one account be taken with any amount of certainty for practical decision making?
Topic's author
#15
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@sadolite
I'm very interested in what history you're referring to. I would think at least some old books would contain this history you're speaking of.
#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
I guess the real question is, can history of only one account be taken with any amount of certainty for practical decision making?
No, but no decision is based on one account in history. It's based on the mechanics inferred by the whole dataset.

#17
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,160
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Critical-Tim
" I gave up on history and discussing it, there is no point."  You can believe whatever you want about history, you wouldn't be wrong. History is what ever you thin k it is.
Topic's author
#18
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@sadolite
If history is whatever we think it is, then wouldn't we believing it is practical be beneficial?
Topic's author
#19
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is good to think about, and it's given me more to consider.

Do you think that the knowledge extracted as result from action is contextual, and if so, how is it applicable in a modern context?

Do you agree that the older history is the less practical it is since there are not only fewer accounts but even a greated deviance in context?
For example, the last ten years of history are probably more important or relevant than the ten previous to it.
#20
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you think that the knowledge extracted as result from action is contextual, and if so, how is it applicable in a modern context?
The theory of context is as important as the actions themselves. Until the decisions of people in history make sense (given that contemporaries also thought it made sense) you keep trying new contextual theories.

These contextual theories are important because they are possibilities for human society to take. If you've taken differential equations you know one of the most useful things in determining a solution is to know the boundary conditions.

What is possible for humanity? History expands the answer to that question from spatial to temporal and vastly increases the resolution of the big picture.


Do you agree that the older history is the less practical it is since there are not only fewer accounts but even a greated deviance in context?
Not necessarily. Yes there is less data the farther back you go, but also the greater the deviance in context the more useful it can be to know.

One of the most important questions that linger is what causes innovation? Archeology and paleontology tell us that we've been roaming around this planet for half a million years. The number of generations of obviously intelligent human beings is staggering.

What is this thing that shows exponential growth? What changes in culture and the mindset it instills are responsible? This reaches into prehistory, but the earliest history is the most useful for answering that question. What did the people at the beginning of the transition from nomadic family groups to large culture groups (and eventually civilization) think? If we could isolate that factor we would know what to maximize (or at least not suppress) to ensure our own continued improvement.


For example, the last ten years of history are probably more important or relevant than the ten previous to it.
Yes, that's true. It's two different phenomenon though, the usefulness of the last 10 years and the usefulness of the last 5000 don't come from the same reasons.

The efficiency of a functioning factory for the past ten years might be relevant to the future of that factory which still exists. If it was 1000 years ago we wouldn't care about improving a long gone factory, we would care about why the factory was built, whether the things it made actually improved people's lives in the long run, etc... etc...
#21
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,160
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Critical-Tim
Believe what ever you want to about history, no one is in any position to tell you what you believe otherwise. Nothing is false if you think its true. If what you think about history is true, then it is.
#22
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
Here is my speculative definition:

History is (potentially) simply a propaganda made to inspire or strike pride in a nation's political, religious, or technological identity.
You’re only defining it from a weaponised/galvanised standpoint.
I’ll go for a low hanging fruit. What do you think of natural history?
Topic's author
#23
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@sadolite
Nothing is false if you think its true. If what you think about history is true, then it is.
I think what you mean is, if a person has a conviction stronger than reason, no one can tell them otherwise.
Topic's author
#24
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Reece101
What do you think of natural history?
I think that if natural history is defined as the historical records of observations on living organisms for scientific progress, then natural history is practical.
Topic's author
#25
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Those are all very good points, and you have swayed me to think that history has many possible practical uses.
#26
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,160
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Critical-Tim
"I think what you mean is, if a person has a conviction stronger than reason, no one can tell them otherwise."  You just described 99.9 % of all people. History is what ever you think it is. History is completely subjective, thus history has taught us that nothing is learned from it. The same shit just repeats over and over.

#27
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@sadolite
@Critical-Tim
Individually and collectively we do learn from our mistakes sometimes, and sometimes make adjustments to our behavior in those regards

Those who tell you no one learns from the past history of experiences in mistaken.

The reason poison-ness mushrooms are historically recorded verbally or in written word or other, is so others do not die.

The list historical accounts that spare human life is long.
#28
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,160
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@ebuc
Just to let you know, Jeepers Creepers was made in 2001 and its been 23 years. Feeding time again.
#29
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@sadolite
Huhh? Jeepers creepers, where'ed you get those Betty Davis eyes Sadolite?


#30
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,160
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@ebuc
See, nothing is learned from history.