It is impossible to logically know the past

[Fido]

It is impossible because there is one past, but a multitude of evidence. Since we are the result of the past we can say some part of what happened just by being here. If logically means with certainty, it is impossible to know. If we have to know then we can know only by makeing some very broad assumptions such as, that people have always been people. This is impossible to prove though there is evidence.

At some point people ceased being animals and became the social being we are. At some points, the rank lack of sofistication with communication reveals a thought process in infancy, even among the most intelligent leaders of society. But what has changed? There are still many practical primitives in the curches of our country, and they do not end there.

If our forms of relationship have changed, and I suggest government and language as examples; then we have changed as well. Perhaps we change our forms as we change ourselves. Perhaps we change our forms to avoid change, and are yet changed. It is like heating and cooling a house with central heating and air. There is a great deal of technology invested in such stuff, and all of that technology is invested with science and formal understanding. Why? Is it all so we can stay naked in the winter and clothed in the summer? We invent for convenience, but keep out of dependence. Has humanity not always sought the steady state where nature was comfortably controled, and relationships never varied? What has changed about us? Can we know this with logic or certainty? Does that mean we cannot know something for knowing not everything?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Fido

It is impossible because there is one past, but a multitude of evidence. Since we are the result of the past we can say some part of what happened just by being here. If logically means with certainty, it is impossible to know. If we have to know then we can know only by makeing some very broad assumptions such as, that people have always been people. This is impossible to prove though there is evidence.

At some point people ceased being animals and became the social being we are. At some points, the rank lack of sofistication with communication reveals a thought process in infancy, even among the most intelligent leaders of society. But what has changed? There are still many practical primitives in the curches of our country, and they do not end there.

If our forms of relationship have changed, and I suggest government and language as examples; then we have changed as well. Perhaps we change our forms as we change ourselves. Perhaps we change our forms to avoid change, and are yet changed. It is like heating and cooling a house with central heating and air. There is a great deal of technology invested in such stuff, and all of that technology is invested with science and formal understanding. Why? Is it all so we can stay naked in the winter and clothed in the summer? We invent for convenience, but keep out of dependence. Has humanity not always sought the steady state where nature was comfortably controled, and relationships never varied? What has changed about us? Can we know this with logic or certainty? Does that mean we cannot know something for knowing not everything?

We are absolutely certain about very little, if anything, if that means that error is impossible. To err is human. So, there is no good reason we should have the standard of certainty for knowing the past.

[boagie]

Hi All!

What might be the constent/s of human history? It seems to me that would be human psychology understood in its context. The human mind has not evolved at all in the past twenty thousand years, that's relatively constent I would say. You cannot understand human history until human psychology if full known.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi All!

What might be the constent/s of human history? It seems to me that would be human psychology understood in its context. The human mind has not evolved at all in the past twenty thousand years, that's relatively constent I would say. You cannot understand human history until human psychology if full known.

How is that relevant to whether the past is knowable?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

How is that relevant to whether the past is knowable?

kennethamy,

With what do you know it with? One can only understand out of what they themselves are.Presently psychology is still in its infancy,we are far from understanding our own natures and human history is the expression of that nature.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

With what do you know it with? One can only understand out of what they themselves are.Presently psychology is still in its infancy,we are far from understanding our own natures and human history is the expression of that nature.

So, and what is your conclusion from all of that. That I do not know that Julius Caesar made himself emperor of Rome? Or, that I do not know that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated?

If "psychology is in its infancy" and if that implies the past is unknowable, then doesn't that imply that both the present and the future are also unknowable, if to understand anything about people we have to understand "our own natures". So how is our knowledge of the present or the future any different from our knowledge of the past? So, I suppose your conclusion has to be that we know nothing.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

So, and what is your conclusion from all of that. That I do not know that Julius Caesar made himself emperor of Rome? Or, that I do not know that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated?

If "psychology is in its infancy" and if that implies the past is unknowable, then doesn't that imply that both the present and the future are also unknowable, if to understand anything about people we have to understand "our own natures". So how is our knowledge of the present or the future any different from our knowledge of the past? So, I suppose your conclusion has to be that we know nothing.

kennethamy,

If you agree with the statement that one can only know out of what one is,--------------draw your own bloody conclusions! If you are stating that you know the present, indicate in what kind of comprehensive manner this is known to you. It just is not enough kennethamy to be consistently negative, that is not really a contribution, it is just a pain in the ass.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

If you agree with the statement that one can only know out of what one is,--------------draw your own bloody conclusions! If you are stating that you know the present, indicate in what kind of comprehensive manner this is known to you. It just is not enough kennethamy to be consistently negative, that is not really a contribution, it is just a pain in the ass.

I was merely pointing out that for the reasons you give that we cannot know the past, we could not know the present or the future. So, if you think we know the present or the future, then the reasons you give that we cannot know the past are no good.

But, it is clear that we do know about the past. As I pointed out, we know that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and that Julius Caesar was a Roman emperor. And, in fact, you know that you were born. And that is knowledge of the past. Isn't it?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I was merely pointing out that for the reasons you give that we cannot know the past, we could not know the present or the future. So, if you think we know the present or the future, then the reasons you give that we cannot know the past are no good.

But, it is clear that we do know about the past. As I pointed out, we know that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and that Julius Caesar was a Roman emperor. And, in fact, you know that you were born. And that is knowledge of the past. Isn't it?

kennethamy,

We have some history behind us we two,we do not mix well.As I stated in another thread it is perhaps best that we in future avoid one another.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

We have some history behind us we two,we do not mix well.As I stated in another thread it is perhaps best that we in future avoid one another.

Is that supposed to be an argument of some sort? What about dealing with what I wrote? Don't you know that you were born? And was that not an event in the past? So don't you know some event in the past? So isn't it true that at least one event is known-by you? So isn't is false that we don't know anything about the past?