3 ms·
Yes. The past is immutable. The point I am making is that the perception of the past is mutable. But it is sold as immutable. And it is interesting that you
by verisimi 5y ago
Yes. The past is immutable. The point I am making is that the perception of the past is mutable. But it is sold as immutable.
And it is interesting that you say 1984 is a warning not a manual. I've made the point before on this site that you can read 1984 as a manual:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30108824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30108824
- usrusr 5y agoUnfortunately, awareness of perception's mutability is all too often taken as an excuse to go one step further...
- UncleMeat 5y agoHistory is not purely the record of the past. It never has been. The past is immutable but our understanding of it and our analysis of it and our relationship with it is not. History isn't sold as immutable and transparant except to people who stopped doing history in high school.
- woolion 5y ago>Yes. The past is immutable. The point I am making is that the perception of the past is mutable. Much of history is not so much about the facts, which are generally fairly agreed upon and not so much rewritten, but on the narratives. For instance there is a war: the narratives are about which side is an aggressor or legitimate, and whether some actors are independent or malicious proxies. Facts are then presented in a way to reinforce the narratives, affecting their perception, and thus closing the circle. This is mostly the same issue with current news reporting.