3 ms·

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 pre

by 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.
    - RyanZAG 10y ago
      Following that line, what use is history at all anymore? It's now just a hammer we can use to propagate whatever new idea we currently have. I don't really see the value in such a history.

by 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.
  - RyanZAG 10y ago
    Following that line, what use is history at all anymore? It's now just a hammer we can use to propagate whatever new idea we currently have. I don't really see the value in such a history.