04 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterthequ1ck had a thread about a political outlook graph for RHPers a while back. i think it was him/her.
"...Republicans are overwhelmingly more positive than Democrats about U.S. history, America as a role model and whether equality of justice exists here. For example, 91% of GOP voters express pride in America's past compared to 64% of Democrats. Seventy-three percent (73😵 of unaffiliated voters agree.
Even more striking is the gap between the ...[text shortened]... etween."
I wonder what the gap would be between Republicans and say, RHPers, for instance?
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by uzlessthen just about every major country has far more than a blemish
I don't think calling the genocide of an entire group of people (native indians) a "blemish" does it justice.
Nor would I call the enslavement of millions of Africans a "blemish" either.
The US has indeed become a very powerful nation, but let's not gloss over history here.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinThere really are no such things as "cold hard facts." There are only facts that change depending on the viewpoints of those who use them in arguments, and facts that change depending on the number of people among whom there is agreement as to the veracity and "truth" of those so-called cold hard facts.
>>History is what historians and others make available to us in the present day to describe what happened in the past.
**This is true of some history, but certainly not all. Ever read any Tacitus, Livy, Sallust, or Cicero? (Incidentally, one of Tony Blair's speech writers clearly learnt a lot from Cicero -- the similarities between some of their speeches ...[text shortened]... erely listing the names of old dead Romans, etc. doesn't prove anything.
Do you deny that the battle of Trafalgar was fought on the 21 October 1805? Do you deny that Hannibal crossed the Alps? or do you deny that Hannibal existed? The list could go on forever.
Again, you are not addressing what I said. I did not say you cannot learn from history. I said that in my experience we do not do so.
Ah, now you've moderated your main argument I do not disagree as much.
However, you are accusing me of fallacious arguments and not actually understanding what it is you're saying, so I'm going to give you a quick English lesson.
Let's take a look at my original post:
History is there to teach us, not reinforce nationalistic misconceptions.
Let's break down the sentence, the first clause is the important bit... the subject is? 'History'. The object? 'Us'.
Now let's look at your disagreement:
One thing we do not use history for is to learn from past mistakes.
Subject? 'We'. Object? History.
Understand? I was talking about what history can do for us, and you replied by talking about what we do with history.
On that all I will say is: "Finally, and once again, it is good to address the points another has actually raised. It is logically fallacious to address points the other party has not raised."
Ooh! I could throw this in too, actually: "You are hereby charged with committing the logical fallacies of the Strawman [sic] Argument, and I'd also throw in the False Appeal to Authority" -- simply stating that you are/were a history major, and therefore are correct, proves nothing.
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by eatmybishopWith great power comes great responsibility.
i think most americans should be proud, in only a short span of time the country has achieved a great deal... it's become - arguably - the most powerful nation on the planet, that in itself is a great achievement...
its history contains blemishes as well, but so does every nation
It´s no great achievement to become powerful, but to sustain that power.
It´s no great feat to be the strongest, but to be just in your strength.
It´s easy to to be powerful, but it´s hard when you compare it with what.
And the US is failing miserably on all accounts.
04 Jul 08
3 edits
the "cold hard facts" everyone seems to be so fond of are really merely linguistic terms on which there is sufficient agreement so as to establish them, at this time, as real.
but I get the strong impression that it is the tendency of people on this and other similar internet sites, to invest in being always, unquestionably correct and to impute that motivation to others who may not suffer from that same malady. In other words, most folks here may admit to having made an error once, but afterwards will maintain they were mistaken.
So we spend a lot of time writing about things not really at issue.
I took the term "cold hard facts" to mean that, without any question, the "facts" referred to are real. And that may be true, right now.
But if you have studied enough history and enough philosophy, especially the very interesting views of Wittgenstein and also of Popper, then you may find that your reliance on the objective reality of "cold hard facts" rests only on a temporary consensus based in linguistics. In short, we Kant have it our way all the time.
If this were not so, then I wonder how it is so easy for political leaders to sell "facts" that are not real, base wars on them, and no one among the masses of folks who believe in these "facts" afterwards demands an accounting for the discrepancy between what was, unquestionably, a slam dunk reality at one point in time and now seems to be anything but a cold hard fact.
Forgive me for being so skeptical, but rather than insisting that I am always right -- I'm not -- I do insist that neither is anyone else.
Reality is pretty much what we make of it -- that is, as Einstein was fond of saying, nothing at all exists unless and until it can be conceived of in the mind of humankind. Which is another way of saying that what we don't know we don't know.
The dates people cite for things are "facts" only so long as the written record is endorsed by a majority of "authorities" on which folks still living choose to rely and accept. There may be alternative, contemporary views of events that turn out to be rejected for various reasons -- we either do not know of these accounts or we also reject them in favor of others. Then we take what we accept as the objective reality or truth. I find that interesting, but perhaps explains why the level of credulity among most people seems so low a bar to get over.
Many dates in history, one can find, have changed because the manner in which they were recorded at the time they happened does not correspond to the way we record dates now.
And many cold hard facts become a matter of some debate, regardless of how firm our belief in them appears to be now. An extreme example is how old the Earth is. Some say 4 thousand years, and they rely on a source for this that they maintain cannot be questioned for it is the revealed word of God. Some say at least 2 or more billion years, because they rely on direct observation and measurement of the radioactive decay of certain elements, which they believe they have proved as an absolute value.
So, rather than deny what it is you maintain is the case, I simply don't choose to put as much faith in the veracity either of your observations or of the sources you cite or fail to cite and assume to be true.
As for lessons in English -- well, whether or not your mind is flexible enough to grasp how weak our grip on reality may be, you just got one.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinHmm, there is a difference between thinking you are always right, and not backing down when you believe yourself to be in the right, is there not? (Believe me I tried to stop myself, but you have gone for a pretty big U-Turn... You have gone from taking an absolute position to some form of nihilistic scepticism (I have studied some philosophy, but not enough.))
the "cold hard facts" everyone seems to be so fond of are really merely linguistic terms on which there is sufficient agreement so as to establish them, at this time, as real.
but I get the strong impression that it is the tendency of people on this and other similar internet sites, to invest in being always, unquestionably correct and to impute that mot ...[text shortened]... xible enough to grasp how weak our grip on reality may be, you just got one.
But if you want to take this to more philosophical grounds, to flex my brittle mind, if you will, is not the statement, "There is no such thing as a cold hard fact" a paradox?
Many dates in history, one can find, have changed because the manner in which they were recorded at the time they happened does not correspond to the way we record dates now.
I'll try to make this the last I say on this, as it doesn't look like we are going to come to an agreement. But what you say is true, and there are other pitfalls too. The probable dates for Julius Caesar's invasion of Briton have recently been changed by a few days due to the fact that the current in the channel was not heading in the right direction on the previous date or something. This sort of historical inference is fraught with danger, and in truth is mainly guesswork.
But that is not to say that all dates are faulty -- to re-use my example of Trafalgar, we have reliable records dating back to then. Yes, you can deny anything under the sun (or, for that matter anything not under the sun and the sun itself too), but if that is what you truly believe then what are you even doing here/anywhere? Would it not be Popper to end the pointless non-existence?
I'd also like to point you to an earlier comment of mine stating something along the lines of 'you can learn from fiction too'. Does history even need to be correct for us to learn from it? Surely there is much to learn about humanity through the countless writings of others too -- and not just dead Romans... dead people from other countries and ages (although I suppose you could argue that it may all be a case of randomly mixed neural fluids anyway -- I, whatever 'I' am, might even be having an imaginary debate with myself as I speak. But I'd really rather prefer not to believe that.)
One last question: do you not think that your study of history has shaped and informed your views of the world today? If not, then how different are you from those that have a "tendency... to invest in being always, unquestionably correct"? If you do not formulate your opinions on the things that you have learned, then how do you know anything? The views of Nihilists included.
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by slimjimIndeed the sins of the fathers are not inherited by the sons !
Oh I'm so tired of hearing about the dammed Indians and the slaves issues. Are you going to continue to beat on a dead horse. I'm sure Canada's history concerning the Red man isn't so "blemish" free neither. We wouldn't have gotten the slaves if it wasn't for their own people selling them to the Europeans and then to us. Why don't you bash England for their ...[text shortened]... f the Americans. Jealous little prick. I can't believe me and deucer are in agreement.
But if you choose to belitle or deny said sins you are not (much) better than those who commited the sins in the first place.
Most/All countries have committed wrongdoings in the past, I think the real test is how we recognize these sins and strive to prevent the same mistakes in the future.
Do you feel that being able to point your finger at the canadians (why not the germans or other europeans by the way, would be more in caracter) relieve you of the obligation to reflect ?
04 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by HumeAI didn't say we could not learn from history.
Hmm, there is a difference between thinking you are always right, and not backing down when you believe yourself to be in the right, is there not? (Believe me I tried to stop myself, but you have gone for a pretty big U-Turn... You have gone from taking an absolute position to some form of nihilistic scepticism (I have studied some philosophy, but not enough.) t you have learned, then how do you know anything? The views of Nihilists included.
I said we do not.
That is, in the context of learning something that would change or affect our behavior in some useful way.
We don't do that. We do what was done in the past largely for the same reasons.
Example:
can you tell me why Stalin treated Lenin's corpse as he did?
Do you know of any historical precedent for it?
I will say that Stalin certainly did learn from the history of Russia -- but he used what he learned to justify repeating the same things that were done more than 800 years before him and for the very same reasons.
I once had to answer the question, as a final exam in a senior level history seminar, compare and contrast Stalin and Ivan Grozny.
I do not say Ivan the Terrible, because that is a mistranslation. It should be Ivan the Awesome because that is what those who bestowed the words on that ancient tyrant meant.
I learned all this standing at the grave of Boris Godunov in Zagorsk from a Russian professor kind enough to take me on a tour.
Look up why Zagorsk was so important and whose corpse is still there, lying in state in a coffin made of solid silver with a canopy of silver that rises to the ceiling. Pilgrims still come, as I did, to stand near that coffin, but only the priests now may gaze on Venerable Sergius of Radonezh.
Hint: Sergius is said to have died on September 25, 1392 and was canonized in 1452. It also is said his incorrupt relics were found in 1422 and placed in the new Trinity Cathedral of the Lavra which he founded.
The point of this example is to show the acuity of observations that Henry Kissinger made in academic works that preceded his ignoring the lessons of history and repeating the mistakes of the French during his disastrous tenure in the public sector. Geopolitical and economic realities don't change that quickly, not even after one or more thousands of years. And those realities tend to force people in widely disparate eras to act in precisely the same manner as their precedessors, despite anything they might have learned from history.
I am not nihilistic, merely skeptical. Of course, since I don't believe you, I strike you as nihilistic -- that is very narcissistic of you.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by Scriabin"I am not nihilistic, merely skeptical. Of course, since I don't believe you, I strike you as nihilistic -- that is very narcissistic of you."
I didn't say we could not learn from history.
I said we do not.
That is, in the context of learning something that would change or affect our behavior in some useful way.
We don't do that. We do what was done in the past largely for the same reasons.
Example:
can you tell me why Stalin treated Lenin's corpse as he did?
Do you know of any h ...[text shortened]... since I don't believe you, I strike you as nihilistic -- that is very narcissistic of you.
Wow, you're pretty determined to turn this into a heated argument -- okay, I'll play along... you swine, you. Bet that hurt.
What I was referring to as nihilism is your use of arguments such as: "nothing at all exists unless and until it can be conceived of in the mind of humankind". OK?
"We don't do that. We do what was done in the past largely for the same reasons."
So you feel that you can speak for the human race? You can be sure that no single person has ever learnt something useful from history? Here's a crude example -- after studying for a paper on Easter Island, I have become more conscious re turning lights off, getting eco-friendly soaps and other generally pathetic and useless ecological gestures. I have still changed my way of life, even if only ever so slightly, through a reading of history. (And as you may know, Jared Diamond's popular version of what happened to bring about the demise of the Island is possibly not correct, we cannot be sure. But the point remains that a reading of history has taught me something which has altered my daily routine/way of life.) It's a small, petty example, but one becoming of my position in the world (ATTOW 😀).
I know nothing of the history of medieval Russia, although it is something I'm quite interested in. I'll look Sergius up in the library.
Hmm, looks like it about time for my cutting quip... It's difficult to think of one though... I don't know which part of your shifting argument I should attack. Oh! What do you know... looks like that'll do.
05 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by HumeANow, without any "heat" as you call it, one has to observe that small and petty are good, entirely appropriate words to apply to your views and the way you choose to read and reason. Maybe you should look up a little philosophy and read a biography of Einstein. I made reference to your being narcissistic because it seemed that you only seem able to reflect on your own thoughts, as you cannot appear to absorb or even mirror mine.
[b]"I am not nihilistic, merely skeptical. Of course, since I don't believe you, I strike you as nihilistic -- that is very narcissistic of you."
Wow, you're pretty determined to turn this into a heated argument -- okay, I'll play along... you swine, you. Bet that hurt.
What I was referring to as nihilism is your use of arguments such as: "nothing at fting argument I should attack. Oh! What do you know... looks like that'll do.[/b]
Einstein said what I quoted about nothing existing until it can be conceived by a human mind, not out of nihilism, but rather to distance himself from Kant and the German school of thought holding there is an objective reality apart from what we can perceive -- which in turn came from the idea that our senses cannot be trusted and that everything could be an illusion. Of course, Einstein believed no such thing and also thought he had proved the case that everything that can be observed is relatively different depending on a certain set of constants and variables.
However, you may be among those unfamiliar with Einstein's theories and mistakenly believe, as some do, that it was his wife that came up with the revolutionary physics theories for which Einstein is credited -- which would mean you may only be familiar with Einstein's theory of relatives.
That Einstein was nihilistic no doubt is possibly a correct view, accepted at most among folks totally unfamiliar with Einstein. But perhaps Einstein's nihilism was foreshadowed and even proven true when Descartes walked into a salon and his hostess asked him if he would like a glass of wine from the Chateau de Gignac, which Descartes never drank on account of his gout. When Descartes began to decline the offer, he said "I don't think...." and vanished.
Let's go back to a question that underlies everything you are trying to establish: how do we know anything?
If we cannot agree on that, then the rest, as they say, is history ....
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyChina, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe are examples of countries that are less egalitarian than the US is. Should the minority of people in Zimbabwe who voted for Mugabe without being coerced be even more proud of their support of anti-egalitarianism and their opposition to universal principles of progressivism?
I am quite proud of my nation. It stands alone in the world against transnationalist progressivism. That alone lends it a certain credence and reason for admiration.
The tranzi’s who are trying to unite the world in absolute equality see the USA as the single remaining obstacle that needs to be destroyed. They are attacking the idea that there can be ...[text shortened]... this world wide effort to move the government of the world into the hands of APPOINTED agencies.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinI am fully willing to admit that I know little to nothing about Einstein and his theories and views. I used the term nihilistic not for Einstein, but for the manner in which you were using his words -- your point that there is no such thing as truth, as a cold hard fact, is nihilistic, is it not? I apologise if I am wrong.
Now, without any "heat" as you call it, one has to observe that small and petty are good, entirely appropriate words to apply to your views and the way you choose to read and reason. Maybe you should look up a little philosophy and read a biography of Einstein. I made reference to your being narcissistic because it seemed that you only seem able to reflect ...[text shortened]... ow anything?
If we cannot agree on that, then the rest, as they say, is history ....
Then again, I don't see that Einstein has much relevance to my argument even though he does to yours. We seem to have drifted and are agruing completely different points.
My argument can be summed up as simply as: History can teach us, and it is naive to suggest that no-one have ever learnt anything from history.
"I made reference to your being narcissistic because it seemed that you only seem able to reflect on your own thoughts, as you cannot appear to absorb or even mirror mine."
Please, you're going to make me cry. My insistence on not answering every single part of your argument comes from your insistence in not reading each of my points. In fact, if you look back over each of our posts, I have addressed several of your points which create difficulties for my argument, yet you seem to have addressed none of my points. Look your own narcissism in the face -- you assume that I should be 'absorbing' your ideas, or 'mirroring' them, when you make no attempt to do so with mine.
So I'll ask you a few straightforward questions -- you can ignore them if you like, but then this is the last you'll hear from me. Trolling is only fun for the troll.
1. Was there such a concept as the 'separation of powers' in the Iroquois confederation? There was in the Roman Republic, and that, with one of the most important points concerning American government, is where the idea came from.
2. Have I not learnt something from history with regard to my Easter Island example? Do you know anything about Rapa'Nui, I would be delighted to enlighten you, although the information is readily available on the internet.
3. Can useful lessons be learnt from fiction?
4. Do you not think that your study of history has shaped and informed your views of the world today? If not, then how different are you from those that have a "tendency... to invest in being always, unquestionably correct"? If you do not formulate your opinions on the things that you have learned, then how do you know anything? (I'll get to the question concerning how we know anything in a moment. Assume for the purpose of this question that the computer you are typing on and the world around exists outside of your mind.)
5. Do you still maintain that we do not learn from history? I do not contend the fact that we as humans rarely listen to the lesson that history could teach us, but do you still insist on talking in absolutes?
Now onto your question of me: how do we know anything?
A chemical reaction stimulates the memory keeping capacity of the brain. I agree that all around us, everything that we sense is subjective, and we cannot be sure, when it comes down to it, that anything exists outside our minds. Now we reach Descartes. If nothing exists outside our minds, then that must mean that our minds exist in some shape or form (that is my reading of his work, anyway).
So I agree that we cannot be certain that we truly know anything. But we think we do. Is that not enough? I can not be certain that I am typing on this laptop, but my senses are telling me that I am, and they are all I have when it comes down to it, so I am happy enough to believe them. If they are untrue to me, then what do I know, and what does it matter? Would you agree on that?
I would also put forward that the question, "how do we know anything?" underlies everything that you are trying to establish too. In fact it underlies any concept which any human may attempt to voice.
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by HumeALet's cut to the chase, as they say.
So I agree that we cannot be certain that we truly know anything. But we think we do. Is that not enough? I can not be certain that I am typing on this laptop, but my senses are telling me that I am, and they are all I have when it comes down to it, so I am happy enough to believe them. If they are untrue to me, then what do I know, and what does it matter? Wo ...[text shortened]... rying to establish too. In fact it underlies any concept which any human may attempt to voice.
Bottom line, I don't think we have a disagreement -- what we have here is a failure on both our parts to communicate.
I keep saying while we can learn ... we tend not to.
You keep saying we can learn and sometimes we do.
Not much difference as to make a significant distinction, when you come down to it.
My points are made to show that absolutes, such as the concept of The Truth, are not useful because our observations, interpretations of same, and even our linguistics change, sometimes radically, over time.
So it pays to remain skeptical, flexible, and able to adapt. For example, when I was quite young I found myself very upset, shaken to the core when I encountered and understood the implications of the Uncertainty Principle. And here I had been so comfortable with the Bohr theory of the atom -- it just wasn't fair!!! I believe that Einstein had a similar reaction and did not accept or understand quantum mechanics and reacted much the same way when he said "God does not play dice .."
I don't know about God .... but I'd have to say I wouldn't rule out the idea that He plays dice ....