Philosophy Now Forum

Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:54 am Or perhaps I misread you... let’s explore, shall we?

What I find problematic is the claim that things make it into recorded history because they are important, when really, things become historically important because they are (chosen to be) included in recorded history. Do you see the difference...?

The former suggests that what did not make it into recorded history was never important, whiles the latter acknowledges that those in control of the production of information at a particular time - that which becomes recorded history - choose what is of relevance to them at that time.

In reminding one’s readers that things become historically relevant because they were included in recorded history and not vice versa, one is highlighting that our record of history is not a question of truth, but of perspective: it is shows us a version of many different - equally true - pasts.

Doing this, is not only a matter of good ethical writing; as values in society change, it allows us to reevaluate the historical relevance of a narrative.

Does that make sense?


Humbly
Hermit

this leads to the intentional erasure of certain histories, but it always has...

kwai

-Imp

Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:54 am one is highlighting that our record of history is not a question of truth, but of perspective: it is shows us a version of many different - equally true - pasts.

Doing this, is not only a matter of good ethical writing; as values in society change, it allows us to reevaluate the historical relevance of a narrative.

Does that make sense?

Abslutely not. There is only one past and only what correctly describes the actual events of that history are true. It has nothing to do with perspective or opinion.

There can be differences in the fidelity of the facts of recorded history or in the interpretation of the significance of past events, but there can be no difference in the actual facts of history. To be ethical, history only needs to keep the record as rigorously and honestly as possible.

the history is always written by the victors...

thousands of tribes worldwide have been erased from history due to manifest destiny and the like...

-Imp

Then I did not misread you, RCSaunders.
I just disagree with you on this matter.


Humbly
Hermit

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:51 pm the history is always written by the victors...

thousands of tribes worldwide have been erased from history due to manifest destiny and the like...

-Imp

Absolutely.

And we must keep reminding people that recorded history is produced ...and fragmented ...and represents a truth (the “victorious’” emphasis of what was important, if you will - I personally prefer to use the term “producers’”) and not the truth of historical events.

It ought to be obvious, but we must include it when addressing recorded history, because there still are too many people not doing so.

In my opinion.


Humbly
Hermit

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:51 pm thousands of tribes worldwide have been erased from history...

How can it possibly matter?

Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 10:04 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:51 pm ...thousands of tribes worldwide have been erased from history....

-Imp

And we must keep reminding people that recorded history is produced

How can it possibly matter. It might be interesting to know more history, although what there now is more than any one person could ever study in a lifetime. What difference would it make if whatever you think is missing from history, wasn't missing? If it wasn't recorded, how do you know it is missing?

Take Impenitent's statement: "thousands of tribes worldwide have been erased from history," If they were erased from history how could you possibly know they ever existed. If you know there were such tribes, you could only know that from some recorded history, so they couldn't have been erased.

Which is it?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 7:16 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:51 pm thousands of tribes worldwide have been erased from history...

How can it possibly matter?

it doesn't matter. we are the "T"ruth

-Imp

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 7:59 pm How can it possibly matter. It might be interesting to know more history, although what there now is more than any one person could ever study in a lifetime. What difference would it make if whatever you think is missing from history, wasn't missing? If it wasn't recorded, how do you know it is missing?

Take Impenitent's statement: "thousands of tribes worldwide have been erased from history," If they were erased from history how could you possibly know they ever existed. If you know there were such tribes, you could only know that from some recorded history, so they couldn't have been erased.

Which is it?

I don’t think you and I are addressing the exact same thing here @RCSaunders. That may well be my fault, for not clearly defining what I meant by recorded history.

When you say “recorded history”, you appear to be speaking about any and all historical events, documented somewhere.

If so, fair enough but in context of this thread, when I spoke of “recorded history”, I had been referring to the collection of historical narratives included in the canonised field of History [of Man].

Outside of this canonisation, are many other, well documented events, that simply did not make it into what we are taught is the “history of man” - not because they were not important, but because they were not important to those writing the history of man.

Then, I said that once something important is excluded from [the field of] history, it becomes less important because we are not taught about it. But that does not mean that those things in actual fact were less important to begin with.

The reason why this is most certainly not irrelevant is that when such things come into collective light, they change our way of understanding the “history of man”. Entire paradigm shifts are based on exactly this. They’ve occurred before and will occur again but we must increase another’s awareness of the fact the the history of man is a perspective - a truth, hopefully, but never the truth.


Humbly
Hermit

Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:52 pm ... when I spoke of “recorded history”, I had been referring to the collection of historical narratives included in the.

OK. But I think it is bad policy to criticize history in a way that anyone would assume meant all of recorded history, while actually only referring to something you are calling the, "historical cannon."

As far a I know, there is no, "official," or, "authoritative," body or agency that determines what is or is not official history.

Specifically, what are you referring to as the, " canonised field of History [of Man]." What documents or works would you include, and exclude, and who decided what that canon is?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 3:36 pm

Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:52 pm ... when I spoke of “recorded history”, I had been referring to the collection of historical narratives included in the.

OK. But I think it is bad policy to criticize history in a way that anyone would assume meant all of recorded history, while actually only referring to something you are calling the, "historical cannon."

As far a I know, there is no, "official," or, "authoritative," body or agency that determines what is or is not official history.

Specifically, what are you referring to as the, " canonised field of History [of Man]." What documents or works would you include, and exclude, and who decided what that canon is?

I was going to try to explain this myself, but I’m short of time today.

If you’re interested, look into things like:
bodies of knowledge
curriculums
university reading lists
academic paradigms
etc

Whether it’s history or any other subject: there are things we are taught and things that we are not. What we are taught, affects what we think and what we think affect what we look for and how we interpret new information.

Wishing you a pleasant weekend.


Humbly
Hermit