4 ms·

So Liberalism is good and improves things, and therefore everyone will choose it? Assuming the first part is true, just becomes something is better does not me

by RyanZAG 10y ago

So Liberalism is good and improves things, and therefore everyone will choose it? Assuming the first part is true, just becomes something is better does not mean it will be chosen, so I don't think that argument works.

vinceguidry 10y ago
Well, no, I'm talking about how things evolve. There's this big myth in history about technological, economic and social decline. That it's been up and down for 2000 years, fits and starts. It's not the case, things slowly and continuously evolve, you just only notice it happening in fits and starts. Also the mind is designed to focus on negative things, so we assign more weight to the negative than we would if we were being more rational.
- RyanZAG 10y ago
  How do you explain the fall of Athens and Rome, and the very long centuries of dark ages in Europe and West Asia?
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    The dark ages are a myth. This is becoming more accepted amongst historians. It's an artifact of our imaginations, not a valid narrative. Athens and Rome are only two of countless agrarian kingdoms / empires of the day. When Rome fell, the rest of Europe mostly just went on without imperial control. More wars were fought but warfare of the day was exceedingly resource-constrained and not like the total wars we see today. Kingdoms and empires rose and fall all the time, we just focus on those two because their culture survived while the other ones' didn't. The terminology "dark ages" more refers to the loss of Christian leadership than it does of technological or economic loss. Christians love to frame things apocalyptically and that's what's responsible for the common pejorative view of that time period. A more valid comparison would be the Napoleanic wars, but there too, you can see that really the wars were only possible because economic advancement allowed nations much more resources to devote to war. Europe had to learn how to civilize warfare three times. Each time happened after massive economic advancements.
    - RyanZAG 10y ago
      Interesting, but it seems you're coming from the position of having already concluded what the answer is, and then going back and fitting everything to that precondition.
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        Reassessing historical narratives you grew up with has that effect. I'm coming to find out that nothing is as it was taught. The information you gain today should be prioritized over the information you learned yesterday, just because it comes from a better and more informed perspective. I've been spending lots of time on Quora, I eventually learned that not a single way of thinking about events I had when I was younger was anywhere close to truth. Ignorance is the norm rather than the exception. You have to reify past events to fit current conclusions because you have no past understanding of those events that's reliable. I'd call it "post-history" but if anything history is more important.
        RyanZAG 10y ago
        Definitely, but that doesn't change the simple logic that if you have a conclusion, it's very easy to lose the truth of a historical situation by instead selecting an explanation that you want. Let's say there is a historical event, and you know of 3 different possible explanations. Explanation 1 is what you learned as a child and it's clearly wrong now because of new evidence. Explanation 2 and 3 both fit all known facts and either one could be correct -- but only explanation 2 fits with your conclusion that the world is always heading towards liberalism (or conservatism or whatever you believe). Do you pick explanation 2? Human nature says you do, and it's something we need to be aware of. > You have to reify past events to fit current conclusions because you have no past understanding of those events that's reliable. Do you really have to?
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        > Do you really have to? Think about it. You have an understanding of history. You can't not have an understanding of history, unless you live under a rock. As you study history more and more, you realize that all of your prior understandings of history are wrong. What do you do then? You don't have a past anymore. The only thing that's making sense is the present. So you re-examine the past in light of the present. That's reifying. It's your only option. You're reifying today, you're going to reify again tomorrow. Because the thing doing the understanding is changing every day, so you need new understandings. You're not building, you're constantly demolishing. Logic is only as good as your premises. If your premises can't be trusted, you need to go back to the drawing board.

by RyanZAG 10y ago

vinceguidry 10y ago

Well, no, I'm talking about how things evolve. There's this big myth in history about technological, economic and social decline. That it's been up and down for 2000 years, fits and starts. It's not the case, things slowly and continuously evolve, you just only notice it happening in fits and starts. Also the mind is designed to focus on negative things, so we assign more weight to the negative than we would if we were being more rational.

RyanZAG 10y ago
How do you explain the fall of Athens and Rome, and the very long centuries of dark ages in Europe and West Asia?
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  The dark ages are a myth. This is becoming more accepted amongst historians. It's an artifact of our imaginations, not a valid narrative. Athens and Rome are only two of countless agrarian kingdoms / empires of the day. When Rome fell, the rest of Europe mostly just went on without imperial control. More wars were fought but warfare of the day was exceedingly resource-constrained and not like the total wars we see today. Kingdoms and empires rose and fall all the time, we just focus on those two because their culture survived while the other ones' didn't. The terminology "dark ages" more refers to the loss of Christian leadership than it does of technological or economic loss. Christians love to frame things apocalyptically and that's what's responsible for the common pejorative view of that time period. A more valid comparison would be the Napoleanic wars, but there too, you can see that really the wars were only possible because economic advancement allowed nations much more resources to devote to war. Europe had to learn how to civilize warfare three times. Each time happened after massive economic advancements.
  - RyanZAG 10y ago
    Interesting, but it seems you're coming from the position of having already concluded what the answer is, and then going back and fitting everything to that precondition.
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      Reassessing historical narratives you grew up with has that effect. I'm coming to find out that nothing is as it was taught. The information you gain today should be prioritized over the information you learned yesterday, just because it comes from a better and more informed perspective. I've been spending lots of time on Quora, I eventually learned that not a single way of thinking about events I had when I was younger was anywhere close to truth. Ignorance is the norm rather than the exception. You have to reify past events to fit current conclusions because you have no past understanding of those events that's reliable. I'd call it "post-history" but if anything history is more important.
      - RyanZAG 10y ago
        Definitely, but that doesn't change the simple logic that if you have a conclusion, it's very easy to lose the truth of a historical situation by instead selecting an explanation that you want. Let's say there is a historical event, and you know of 3 different possible explanations. Explanation 1 is what you learned as a child and it's clearly wrong now because of new evidence. Explanation 2 and 3 both fit all known facts and either one could be correct -- but only explanation 2 fits with your conclusion that the world is always heading towards liberalism (or conservatism or whatever you believe). Do you pick explanation 2? Human nature says you do, and it's something we need to be aware of. > You have to reify past events to fit current conclusions because you have no past understanding of those events that's reliable. Do you really have to?
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        > Do you really have to? Think about it. You have an understanding of history. You can't not have an understanding of history, unless you live under a rock. As you study history more and more, you realize that all of your prior understandings of history are wrong. What do you do then? You don't have a past anymore. The only thing that's making sense is the present. So you re-examine the past in light of the present. That's reifying. It's your only option. You're reifying today, you're going to reify again tomorrow. Because the thing doing the understanding is changing every day, so you need new understandings. You're not building, you're constantly demolishing. Logic is only as good as your premises. If your premises can't be trusted, you need to go back to the drawing board.