Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    But “transcending society” isn’t as much transcending it as reacting against it, and studying societal reaction, counter culture and revolution is as much a part of history as anything else.
    but u dont understand
    babies are free...people grow up seeing the ignorance of other people, and are molded by this

    knowing psychology, and by ur own desires, u can mold urself

    sure, i learn language, but language is not who i am
    sure, i learn punishment, but punishment is not who i am
    sure, i learn being hated, but being hated is no who i am

    people who grow up seeing the evil in the world often think rebellion is the answer to it...well, just bcuz u punish me does not mean rebelling it wut i am doing. perhaps i am simply doing wut i want to do? just bcuz u tell me not to do something, and i do it anyway, that does not make it rebellion

    rebellion is an overused term these days...and, i think, personally, it is just an issue with those trying to overcome their lack of self exploration. once u find urself (yes, u have a self, u have ur own desires--learn from ur own recognized mistakes, not wut people tell u are mistakes), i fail to see how society can affect u. u may react to it, but it does not define who u are
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ensocopier)
    How can you understand the thoughts of people in the past. Peoples thoughts aren't always translated into actions. What is the point of history - it provides a context for events today. How can you understand the Iraq War without understanding the Gulf War, WWII, the Vietnam war etc, all of which are likely to have played on the minds of decision makers.
    Ok you take the example of war, I'll accept that wars reappear from time to time in history, and that every new war is in some ways a new kind of war, owing to the lessons leant by humans in the last one etc etc. What is different about history is that it is not the study of events per se, but of acts. Events are only knowable to a historian as an outward expression of his or her thoughts. A historian's goal in part is to re-enact in his own mind the thoughts and motives of the agents whose actions he is narrating, and no succession of events is an historical succession unless it consists of acts whose motives can, in principle at least, be thus re-enacted. Everything which, happens in history happens by the will of man, for the historical process consists of human actions and the will of man is nothing but man's though expressing itself outwardly in action. I'm not saying that my theory is undeniably true, what I would say however is that if you can accept the theory then you can accept the principle of history as the quest for knowledge, both of "man" and of oneself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caz)
    but u dont understand
    babies are free...people grow up seeing the ignorance of other people, and are molded by this

    knowing psychology, and by ur own desires, u can mold urself

    sure, i learn language, but language is not who i am
    sure, i learn punishment, but punishment is not who i am
    sure, i learn being hated, but being hated is no who i am

    people who grow up seeing the evil in the world often think rebellion is the answer to it...well, just bcuz u punish me does not mean rebelling it wut i am doing. perhaps i am simply doing wut i want to do? just bcuz u tell me not to do something, and i do it anyway, that does not make it rebellion

    rebellion is an overused term these days...and, i think, personally, it is just an issue with those trying to overcome their lack of self exploration. once u find urself (yes, u have a self, u have ur own desires--learn from ur own recognized mistakes, not wut people tell u are mistakes), i fail to see how society can affect u. u may react to it, but it does not define who u are
    Do you believe you could have thought the way you think now if you had been born in Medieval England?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    i reckon History can be really interesting. i love loads of battles from history.

    which is why Time Commanders is one of my favorite shows.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You keep trying to reinforce the superiority of psychology over history but I must admit to having opposite sentiments. Psychology is thought of the first degree; it treats mind in just the same way in which biology treats life. It does not deal with the relation between though and its object, it deals directly with thought as something quite separate from its object, something that simply happens in the world, as a special kind of phenomenon, one that can be discussed by itself. To understand oneself however, a philosophical approach must be taken, and philosophy is never concerned with though itself; but always with its relation to its object.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    You keep trying to reinforce the superiority of psychology over history but I must admit to having opposite sentiments. Psychology is thought of the first degree; it treats mind in just the same way in which biology treats life. It does not deal with the relation between though and its object, it deals directly with thought as something quite separate from its object, something that simply happens in the world, as a special kind of phenomenon, one that can be discussed by itself. To understand oneself however, a philosophical approach must be taken, and philosophy is never concerned with though itself; but always with its relation to its object.
    But how can an historian re-enact in his own mind the thoughts of people in the past. You have already conceded that society today is fundamentally different from in the past. Therefore, you are re-enacting peoples thoughts in the context of todays attitudes, and with the benefit of hindsight, Furthermore, thoughts often dont result in the action they intended.

    'Everything which happens in history happens by the will of man' - do you really think this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ensocopier)
    But how can an historian re-enact in his own mind the thoughts of people in the past. You have already conceded that society today is fundamentally different from in the past. Therefore, you are re-enacting peoples thoughts in the context of todays attitudes, and with the benefit of hindsight, Furthermore, thoughts often dont result in the action they intended.

    'Everything which happens in history happens by the will of man' - do you really think this?
    But that is exactly what history is, it is the reliving of the past in the present. It is not the knoweldge of the past or the knoweldge of the past, but the knoweldge of the past in the present., the self-knowleedge of the historian's own mind as the present revival and reliving of past expierences. However, what is important to remember that although I am "reliving the past", I am reliving it its own context, my point is not that "the past" as such lives in the immediate expierience of present, what lives is the self-knoweldge of the present which comes about because of the reliving of the past (yes, I am aware that that sounds horribly convuluted ).

    What I mean by "the will of man" is that as soon as an action is taken it can no longer said that it is anything other than the will of that person. The action is the direct result of a concious decision, therefore it is person's will.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    You keep trying to reinforce the superiority of psychology over history but I must admit to having opposite sentiments. Psychology is thought of the first degree; it treats mind in just the same way in which biology treats life. It does not deal with the relation between though and its object, it deals directly with thought as something quite separate from its object, something that simply happens in the world, as a special kind of phenomenon, one that can be discussed by itself. To understand oneself however, a philosophical approach must be taken, and philosophy is never concerned with though itself; but always with its relation to its object.
    i'm not suggesting history plays no role at all--only that it does not help u understand urself

    ur idea bout medieval stuff: no, i wouldnt have thought the same. i thought this was the point of my argument? times change, which is why things in the past do not affect me, bcuz as we time goes on, we are not heading to an unmarked path, but instead heading to enlightenment--or truth

    man once thought that the world was flat. further evidence tells us this is not true. history goes back too far--and makes it irrelevant

    u must stay in proximity if u want to relate it with "urself"
    people incorporate theirself into society. this does not mean they are not this person, bcuz if society was different they would be different. this means that truth lies beyond the physical settings.

    u cannot give without receiving first. u cannot give individuality if u learn in ur environment (no, u did not learn from ur history, u learned from ur environment) that u are not an individual...but further investigation tells me no matter how much people tell u about urself, a man instinctively has an individuality (soul?? i dont know) and will do his best to pursue it in the pursuit of happiness.

    sexuality is so important bcuz it is a distinct truth about our differences...neither one being less or more than the other. if everyone in history was a heterosexual, i fail to see how this would benefit a homosexual in understanding himself

    this goes by the principle however that we are born perfect, but corrupted. history as a subject wont help me personally. i may understand society more, but society isnt exactly history now is it? therefore i would look to society and psychology to understand myself...or, actually look to myself and pursue what makes me happy and what doesnt as a natural means to understanding myself
    history, however...no
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    But that is exactly what history is, it is the reliving of the past in the present.
    Therefore, if society is always changing, and it is impossible to rise above this, can it therefore be argued that historical truth is impossible. The current view of history will simply be rejected by future generations and that revision will be refuted. Or, do you think that our changing society simply gives different perspectives on the 'truth' which we may eventually reach. (sorry if that doesn't make sense!)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm, I've got to admit to being far too tired to continue on this discussion unfortunately, I think finding common ground would prove difficult anyway as we basically have two fundamental "world views" so to speak. I would recommend Collingwood's "The Idea of History" for a far more succinct, persuasive and eloquent version of the argument I have been trying to make xthup.

    I take it you're a psychology student?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ensocopier)
    Therefore, if society is always changing, and it is impossible to rise above this, can it therefore be argued that historical truth is impossible. The current view of history will simply be rejected by future generations and that revision will be refuted. Or, do you think that our changing society simply gives different perspectives on the 'truth' which we may eventually reach. (sorry if that doesn't make sense!)
    I think history is to an extent a reflection of the society of the historian, yes. It is very difficult for any person to be totally objective and free of preconceptions. However, I do think that the best history comes about when the historian manages to rise about his or her temporary position in society and to judge the past in its own terms, to use his own thought process to relive a time when people’s though was shaped a society far different from his or her own.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    But that is exactly what history is, it is the reliving of the past in the present. It is not the knoweldge of the past or the knoweldge of the past, but the knoweldge of the past in the present., the self-knowleedge of the historian's own mind as the present revival and reliving of past expierences. However, what is important to remember that although I am "reliving the past", I am reliving it its own context, my point is not that "the past" as such lives in the immediate expierience of present, what lives is the self-knoweldge of the present which comes about because of the reliving of the past (yes, I am aware that that sounds horribly convuluted ).

    What I mean by "the will of man" is that as soon as an action is taken it can no longer said that it is anything other than the will of that person. The action is the direct result of a concious decision, therefore it is person's will.
    ur view seems messed up. if the past affects everything and still does, then why does every moment we're alive give us an opportunity to turn it all around? we are not heading in the past, we're heading in the future...u must understand the moment to shape the future

    the sun earth will continue spinning around the sun no matter what happens. existence is constant--free will is possibility. we exist not in the physical, but as simply being.
    i am
    this much i know. the physical world is my playground to change. if everyone ignored the past, we would be able to shape the future with each passing moment in a way that we could only imagine. wut u have to do is realize the only thing affecting u, is u--other people may affect u physically, but as for YOU, u are YOU, and YOU hold the desire to choose and be...the universe does not punish itself for killing a thousand people, why should people constantly thinking about the things they did "wrong" then? or what they did right?
    if we all had amnesia we would all be happy bcuz society is fake. everything u learn is, well, learned. history can help u to understand this, but as for YOU, YOU are not society. i am more than a man. i am more than a smoker, i am more than. this is all i can really say about me. i am what i am...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I must admit, I have not got the energy or the mind capabilities to argue everything I think is wrong with both arguments, right now. However, i would say two things:
    1. The present is not the past re-enacted (which one of you said that?) because societal mentalities of the middle ages for example, are much different to the mentalities now. Different values and factors were of more importance then rather than now, visa versa
    2. You can learn things about yourself from history- I define myself by my history, family history, local history and national identity. If i did not have a knowledge of this, I would not have the ability to define myself in this way.
    xxxClaire xxx
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by claire1985)
    I must admit, I have not got the energy or the mind capabilities to argue everything I think is wrong with both arguments, right now. However, i would say two things:
    1. The present is not the past re-enacted (which one of you said that?) because societal mentalities of the middle ages for example, are much different to the mentalities now. Different values and factors were of more importance then rather than now, visa versa
    The past re-enacted IN ITS OWN TERMS. That is the crucial thing about it all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Kildare--
    What do you think:
    Is there such a think as a historical fact/truth?
    Would be interested to hear your answer
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by claire1985)
    Just kicking off another history thread.... what is the use of history in modern society?
    I'll start off.....
    I think that if you don't know your past you can't know that the future can be different from the present. Therefore, history is a catalyst for change (for the better hopefully!) in our society.
    What do you think?
    xxx Claire xxx
    History is fab, it gives you ideas of the past, who people were, what they did, everything is historey even you,
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    The past re-enacted IN ITS OWN TERMS. That is the crucial thing about it all.
    Is it me being thick (i'm sure it is!) or does the word re-enacted imply sameness? So, if it is re-enacted in it's own terms-how can it be re-enacted? Surely it's different if it's in it's own terms? Can you explain what you mean?
    xxxClairexxx
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by claire1985)
    Is it me being thick (i'm sure it is!) or does the word re-enacted imply sameness? So, if it is re-enacted in it's own terms-how can it be re-enacted? Surely it's different if it's in it's own terms? Can you explain what you mean?
    xxxClairexxx
    Clare; do you know the arguments about historical facts? if so, could you enlighten me
    thanks
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aliel)
    Clare; do you know the arguments about historical facts? if so, could you enlighten me
    thanks
    I wouldn't rely on my arguments about that! That is what cost me my Cam interview. I ended up going down the line of:
    1. Every historian imparts his/her own views onto the 'facts'
    2. How can 'facts' be facts when they were 'found' by historians who have their own biases
    3. If facts aren't 'true' and no-one knows what happened in the past for certain-how can there be historical truth?
    This argument was swiftly ripped to pieces!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aliel)
    Kildare--
    What do you think:
    Is there such a think as a historical fact/truth?
    Would be interested to hear your answer
    Hmmmm, it's the old chestnut isn't it. I think that when you're dealing with any system of knowledge which can't have pre-defined "truths" things are always going to open to question. Everything is in a way “a priori” I suppose. However if we accept the fundamental premise that the past did “really happen” then I think we can reach some conclusions based “acceptable proof”. I think if you don’t accept this it is very difficult to do any “constructive” study of history.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.