"knowing" history?: Philosophy Forums

"knowing" history?

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1018

Posted 09/25/09 - 07:02 AM: Subject: "knowing" history?	#1
What are the best methods used in "knowing" history? For example, if I pick up books X,Y,Z and they inform me about the "middle-ages" have I received "knowledge" - isn't it more to the [contested] point, that what we really know is the prevailing ideology -at the time of the writing of "history"?? So, is there a case to answer, that all history is fiction? Or, would that rather be too sceptical? There are dates, times, people, etc., but such facts are dry facts, and once people start "investigating" history aren't they always and necessarily investigating their own ideology - and not what they think they are doing... Discuss.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

Wicker
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/25/09 - 12:29 PM:	#2
Have you ever read any Orwell works? 1984 talks about this in depth. The idea that the government tells the people whatever false history best suits them. "The Village" also kind of gets on this.

pourquoi
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 03, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 73

Posted 09/25/09 - 01:22 PM:	#3
Well that's the study of history: historiography, it's basically what you learn at university if you major in history - not only just memorizing dates but also learning HOW to analyze evidence. Basically, you have to acknowledge that every side is biased and that everything has more than one cause - wanna see how many theories there are on the causes of World War II ?! So once you gather a lot of evidence, you analyze the speaker: who are they, and why would they say that? Are they going for or against their country's ideology, you have to identify the bias/purpose. And you just compare everything you've got, very rarely do people truly "KNOW" a historical fact, and most certainties are actually archeological: dates, geography and materials.
"Be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi

ModBot
Eliza clone

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Location: Dual xeon processors

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 537

Posted 09/25/09 - 01:42 PM:	#4
History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.

linear_occurance
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 10, 2009
Location: Palmer, AK, USA

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 129

Posted 09/25/09 - 01:50 PM:	#5
To a certain extent, yeah I would say that history is fiction. But not entirely, you have to remember that the events did happen (for the most part), and that there is some fragment of truth to the tales. Like JFK really did get shot, and there really were crusades. But there are many versions of these stories, and to a certain extent, all of them are embelished.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 09/25/09 - 06:56 PM:	#6
You might ask the same question about any knowledge we have. Even our own memories are tenuous at best and filtered through our arbitrary biases. Thus we can study history in basically the same way we approach anything dealing with past. A Buddhist or Taoist might recommend centering yourself in the present if you wish to study the past or future. An academic might recommend studying empirical evidence, and so on. Among Taoists there is a saying, "Many paths, one mountain." Which approach is best depends in no small part on what suits the individual.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 09/27/09 - 10:34 PM:	#7
History is one that best suggests results of events. It depicts what is considered the 'truth' based on modern inferential understanding of results of events of the 'past'. To know is to experience hence history is not about knowing - to relate is not to know, rather, it is to interpret. Hence history is interpretation of events based on co-relation of contemporaries, and how such events are best related to our own understanding of interpreted events that result in history, or rather, results leading to us. You cannot interpret history, but you can co-relate and thus interpret an event - that said, you need a reference for interpretation of an event, history cannot be interpreted. However, this then does not result in knowledge, rather, understanding based on perceived knowledge of events of the past based on results that affect the contemporary. In that sense, it is not knowledge.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.