11 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaActually, I tend to agree with Boss, and George Orwell, that he who writes history controls it. We witnessed this when a certain RHP user was banned last year and the administration and other users wrote erroneous yet largely accepted histories of that event. But I don't think that supports the claim that all histories, such as Lincoln's, should be doubted and discarded simply by virtue of being histories.
Is this actually your position? If so, you seem to be supporting my original claim. So, I thank you for your eloquent words and clear reasoning.
The Spirituality forum has always been at war with the Debates forum.
11 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI agree that the "winners" tend to write history, but this doesn't mean that we can't/don't trust history in general, as was claimed earlier.
Actually, I tend to agree with Boss, and George Orwell, that he who writes history controls it. We witnessed this when a certain RHP user was banned last year and the administration and other users wrote erroneous yet largely accepted histories of that event. But I don't think that supports the claim that all histories, such as Lincoln's, should ...[text shortened]... ue of being histories.
The Spirituality forum has always been at war with the Debates forum.
For example, do you have a bank account? How do you set up a bank account? I imagine that you give them some money, sign some paper work, and walk away. So, you've given them cash. They have the power at that point. Years later, you go back to take out your money. They say no. You present your historical document and you expect that to be valid enough to get your money. Now, if the bank has all the money, then they have the weight in this issue. You have nothing but some old historical paper. Not only does this come into play when closing an account, but you make decisions and actions based on this history every time you write a check or go to an ATM. You rely on history. So, to claim that all history is fiction is inconsistent with the way that you live your life.
11 Aug 05
5 edits
Originally posted by kingdanwaIt's compatible with dissenting views when considering who gives audience and credence to the histories.
How does this account for dissenting views?
Who shot JFK? Depending on who you ask, you could get a variety of answers. Most people who answer the question were not eyewitnesses. Where does their opinion derive from? Whichever of the various histories they have found to be most persuasive.
The people who wrote that Oswald acted alone control history in the sense that some people, due to those histories, believe that that's what happened.
The people who wrote that there was an assassination conspiracy control history in the sense that some other peope, due to those histories, believe that that's what happened.
They obvioulsy don't control history in the sense that merely writing that something took place retroactively makes it take place that way. The control is all in the effects the histories have on the beliefs of the convinced audience.
Additionally, in the realm of dissenting views, the most accurate history is not always the one that is the most widely accepted. One may write a false history and still control history in the sense that he has convinced people of a falsehood.
11 Aug 05
3 edits
Originally posted by kingdanwaI'm not convinced that this is correct.
So, to claim that all history is fiction is inconsistent with the way that you live your life.
What if we all believe the same fictions? My bank statement may be a fiction, but if the bank believes that fiction as much as I do, then there's no problem. I'll get my money. The action is consistent with my claim.
In day to day life, to the extent that histories are fiction and are relevant to our actions, I think we generally accept the same fictions.
It's when we don't accept the same fictions that problems arise. Just ask an old-time Northerner and Southerner what the Civil War was about.
Civil courtrooms are generally the arena where disputes over contrary fictions about reality are ironed out. It would be decided there, if the bank suddenly stopped believing in my bank statement, which of us was believing the correct one. Courtrooms are designed to be objective, but they're really nothing more than rewriters of fiction - it only takes one wrong decision to demonstrate this.
11 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by kingdanwaFiction: An account of an event that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, where reality is the standard of truth, is not fiction. All other accounts of the event are.
For my sake, not trying to play a definition game, can we define fiction?
A person who expresses what appears in his mind to be such truth, but lacks enough knowledge or understanding about the event to keep his account in full accord with reality's, is creating a fiction.
A journalist who gives the bare bones Who What Where and When is creating a fiction if his sources lie to him. If he includes the Why, where the reasons behind the Why are not strict logical deductions, he is almost surely creating a fiction, as he is inventing or accepting others' creative ideas about the causes. These ideas, born from individual's minds, even upon objectively analyzing a situation, are unique. They are the source of the fictional aspects of otherwise accurate historical accounts, and they're not essentially different than the ideas that spring from the heads of the professional fiction author.
If we hold the journalist as the ideal objecitve source of history, and if he creates fictions, then we can expect other less ideal sources of histories to create fictions as well.
11 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI agree with your premise conclusion. Therefore, is it fair to say that we can make truth judgments based on probability?
Fiction: An account of an event that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, where reality is the standard of truth, is not fiction. All other accounts of the event are.
11 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by poopsiecuiThat's one of the Big Quesitons that often arises when discussing the epistemology behind Weak Atheism. The framework that we have established for thinking about such matters in those debates is:
Therefore, is it fair to say that we can make truth judgments based on probability?
Propositions have truth values that are certain, even if we are uncertain of them.
Beliefs are assessments about the likelihood of those propositions' truth values.
To believe a proposition is to assert that the proposition is more likely true than false.
To have a justified belief in a proposition is to make that assertion and have that assertion be correct.
For example, roll a die, but don't look at it yet.
Proposition: The number is not 5. This has a certain truth value, even though I currently do not know it.
Belief: I believe the proposition.
Why the belief?: I assert that the number is more likely not 5 than 5.
Is the belief justified? Yes. It is actually the case the the number is more likely not 5 than 5.
Various other combinations of these four can be constructed, such as that of the poor gambler.
Proposition. The number is 1. This has a certain truth value even though I don't know it.
Belief: I believe the proposition.
Why the belief?: The die is on a 1 streak. It's rolled 1 for the last four times. It's more likely than not a 1 this time as well.
Is the belief justified? No. It is not the case that the number is more likely than not a 1.
11 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think I follow you. Can these same standards apply to (fictional?)history?
That's one of the Big Quesitons that often arises when discussing the epistemology behind Weak Atheism. The framework that we have established for thinking about such matters in those debates is:
Propositions have truth values that are certain, even if we are uncertain of them.
Beliefs are assessments about the likelihood of those propositions ...[text shortened]...
Is the belief justified? No. It is not the case that the number is more likely than not a 1.
12 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by kingdanwaWhen does the historical document exist--in the present or the past? I think you'll agree it exists in the present, or we wouldn't be able to verify its existence. Without it, you'd have no link to the past--your financial transaction. That document records the bare fact of money being in your account--if you were asked to account for how the money got there, you'd rely on memory (mother of the muses) and immediately begin recreating the circumstances of your deposit.
You present your historical document and you expect that to be valid enough to get your money. Now, if the bank has all the money, then they have the weight in this issue. You have nothing but some old historical paper.[...] You rely ...[text shortened]... y is fiction is inconsistent with the way that you live your life.
Historical documents and artefacts offer us the opportunity to interrogate the past, to interpret its statements. As soon as we depart from the bare facts present before us (these facts exist in the present or we would not have them), we necessarily begin creating our own historical dramas. Were this not the case, history would be uniform. Indeed, that is the motivation behind much book burning, from Shi Huang Ti to Mao Tse Tung--to keep the (selected) facts straight.
We live our lives as though the past we remember is true. That is a fiction.
Some people believe that past and future have been annihilated by a continuously recycling digital present in which the distinction between reality and fiction has lost any relevance.