It is logically impossible to know the past

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

A VERY ODD DEBATE
It would seem that NoAngst was hi-jacked by perplexity. Excuse me, but im perplexed by how the debate about historical accuracy can be distorted by historians can be warped so badly.

Perhaps it was not so badly warped; just that the historical account of it is badly warped.

To appreciate the difference it might assist to be clear about the intended purpose.

When we begin with different premises it is not so unlikely that our conclusions will eventually differ.

--- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

MY old history teacher once pointed to an historian who said that it is a truth that if history isnt known (i.e. if knowledge is absent from an event in time)then it does not exist. Also as always historical truth is subject to the perspective of the teller, therefore what can we know of the past with any certainty at all. We rely so heavily on written text to find this information. Would it then be right to say that anything written of an event would be( no matter how 'unsuitable') true and have to be accepted as so?

Archeological evidents of all types can provide information which forms the bigger picture to our past. It can also help streighten out problems of certainty for example. But then is it the fault of the interpreters that cause the confussion or the acceptance of their results by the popular masses? So is the 'history' that is acsepted 'true' or is it really just the ascepted lie, with an alternative 'truth' yet to be uncovered.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

Would it then be right to say that anything written of an event would be( no matter how 'unsuitable') true and have to be accepted as so?

When I was your age I felt unsure but thought that I was sure enough.

After half a centrury of watching everything change I feel much surer of myself while knowing full well that nothing else is so sure. Everything and everybody lets you down sooner or later. I use the very same words now that I did then but their meanings are already different.

What exactly was meant then by words written five hundred years ago?

That is to do with imagination, scarcely an issue of "knowing".

--- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

It is important to remember that our past is also our future and it has an uncanny ability of repeating itself, hense it is important to know as much as possible about it as we can! The truth as hard to desipher as it may be will eventually come to light. The world may change in verious ways, and so does our perseption of it, often in an unrelated way. But thats not to say that our time is that much different to the times of old,if you'd excuse the way ive put it. I mean our world may seem different but our perseptions would still be very simular in its core because the source of our perseptions are always the same( we are all human). Therefore a primary source is equally reliable no matter when it was written.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

It is important to remember that our past is also our future and it has an uncanny ability of repeating itself, hense it is important to know as much as possible about it as we can!

My conclusion is rather that the past appears to repeat itself because our narrative is in effect derived from the same database.
The challenge is not so much then to learn from the past but rather to transcend the genetic inheritance, as soon as you know what you want.

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

I mean our world may seem different but our perseptions would still be very simular in its core because the source of our perseptions are always the same (we are all human). Therefore a primary source is equally reliable no matter when it was written.

How come that the source is the same; how do you hope to know that, apart from your perception of it?

The impression that I have is rather akin to TV viewers who mistakenly believe that they discuss the same soap opera when in fact they were tuned into different channels.

-- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

By database do you mean information source of some type? Well i think that the perceptions generation is in the mind, so it would seem to me that when someone is making an account of an event it is through there 'emotional relationship' to it. All humans share this quality ( unless there a sociopath, then there probably spending their fime doing other things). Humans tend to have a pedictable way they interact with things, and they've always been this way.

[perplexity]

The illusory nature of perception may be fairly easly demonstrated with for instance the Big Spanish Castle

Perception is a process of pattern recognition, as therefore is History. The mind doesn't gather the totality of an immediate happening ad hoc; that would be terribly troublesome overload of your nervous system. It rather looks for patterns already to be expected in order to fit the present impression into expected categories in order to update the working model, the mental map that we suppose to be reality.

The impression of a repetition of past events is thus inevitable: For as long as our method to interpret the past is to recognise past events in terms of events we presently experience, the repetition is a tautology, inferred by the very method.

Events past or present which are totally foreign to our database of experience are inevitably misinterpreted, or not even seen at all. The tricks of magicians often work like that, with the power of suggestion and misdirection.

--- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

The big spanish castle is good, examples like this really illustrate ideas well.

Didnt Hegel say it was possible to discern a particular 'spirit' unfolding in the historical process which he called a 'dialectic' with three stages, i think. It repeats itself over and over always aiming for a rational ideal and absolute. This is much like I was saying about history repeating itself, though as soon as an event is described or recorded it is interpreted which leads to a 'picture' or a view of understanding. How do we relate then the interpretation to the event?

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

...though as soon as an event is described or recorded it is interpreted which leads to a 'picture' or a view of understanding. How do we relate then the interpretation to the event?

Thre trouble with this is that it is not just about the events of 500 years ago. The 'picture', the interpretation is immediate, already out of date as soon as we conceive it, nothing much more than a best guess at the best of times. It is logically impossible to know the past of 10 seconds ago, and more so for me than for most; short term memory terrible, if I put something down for as long as that to think of something else then it is like a game of hide and seek all over again, to work out where I left it.

Better then to create a reality as we go along, spontaneously.

Saves all the bother of having to keep track.

-- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

I think im begining to understand now, so can we trust the past to give us anything or do we have to seek the understand in the present to create our 'truth' of it?