It is logically impossible to know the past

[Aristoddler]

Originally Posted by NoAngst

I literally have no idea what you are talking about. It is as if the preceding pages of discussion did not take place: "There are people who have denied the holocaust, as there are people who say it really happened.
What they believe is history, is what they believe is fact, therefore anything to contradite either side is passed as false information". Amazing.

Apologies.
What I meant by that, is that what they believe is history; is in fact what they choose to believe.
I (for example) choose to believe that Stalin invented the Airplane.
Therefore, anything to contradict me, is in my eyes false.
So history is (to me, and in my writings) Stalin invented the airplane.

Now we have two stories and two inventors, since some people who will read my book will actually believe that Stalin invented it.

[pilgrimshost]

Yes but history isnt created in the mind, it is drawn from a source. Which has one way or another been discovered. Which in effect is 'evidence' of something. What that evidence is interpreted as is the issue!

[Aristoddler]

In two hundred years: My book could be contested as evidence. - for example.

[pilgrimshost]

Ever heard of Bade, he did the same thing, widely regarded as the truth of( i believe) the dark ages, now through new evidence it is revealed to be largely made up for reasons i forget.

[Aristoddler]

And in the process, wasted a lot of people's precious time.
I understand your view, and agree with what you are saying.
I'm only posing a scenario.

The evidence is interpreted as truth in many cases, where it might not be the truth.
Fifteen years ago, Bade was the truth.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by NoAngst

I am not at all sure what you are saying.

Of course not.

With the multiple reality version you have an infinite number of realities to cope with, the need then being to let go of the need for that sense of security, to succumb to the humanly impossible enormity of it.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

If personal belief and concensus of belief have nothing to do with reality, whence the claim that a belief accepted by culture or otherwise consensus, and subsequently promulgated (like that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it?) , that that is reality?

That was reality, just as what now is reality will soon enough be replaced by the next one to come along, and yes, for as long as the mind creates the reality, the possibility of belief is crucial to the process, if you know what a belief is, how to do it. For somebody like me, reluctant to believe, I am equally devoid of a reality, personal or otherwise, hence a creative tendency.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

Come again? Seems to me that you both evidence a lack of understanding of the difference between what is true for you and the majority vs what is true in fact, and this despite my having bothered to conduct the aforementioned experiment.

Yes, absolutely. For somebody of a rational disposition it is impossible to understand without the evidence.

Which experiment, by the way? Do you mean to refer to our separate realities, as demonstrated by the course of this thread?

Hardly, I would have thought, evidence of us inhabiting an identical reality.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

RE: the context of this thread, my argument is that it is logically impossible to know the past because there is no rational means to assess truth value between rival or contradictory accounts, or single accounts which appeal to imponderable evidence (e.g., the unconscious motivations of a subject or subjects party to an event).

Of course: Different realities entail different accounts.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

I take Perplexity to say that there is no objective truth anyway, and so therefore my contention is pointless;

Objective truth as a practical notion is useful enough. It has got the job done for those of us within the working hypothesis of this reality, because from day to day the absolute truth is not so much of a worry, a best guess not only is, but has to be good enough.

Looking around for the after death travel brochures, that is usually when it begins to worry.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

my point is that there is an objective truth (e.g., that the Duke of Medina Sidonia could in fact have been insane or puerile), but that there is nothing in historicism which can admit sufficient precision to make such assessment. Hence, the truth about the past cannot be known, as evidenced by varying and conradictory accounts of the same event.

In which case you are not so alone. If only there were sufficient precision for me to remember where I have left a few of my things around this cluttered room here, today, when I need to find them again.

With regard then to the Duke of Medina Sidonia, et al, I stick with my original: It is all propaganda. There was always a reason for the writer to want you to prefer a particular account of it.

--- RH.

[NoAngst]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

Apologies.
What I meant by that, is that what they believe is history; is in fact what they choose to believe.
I (for example) choose to believe that Stalin invented the Airplane.
Therefore, anything to contradict me, is in my eyes false.
So history is (to me, and in my writings) Stalin invented the airplane.

Now we have two stories and two inventors, since some people who will read my book will actually believe that Stalin invented it.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how what you choose to believe and your commission of the same error I have already noted (i.e., that what is history to you is not history in fact) says nothing as to the truth about the past and should be read strictly for entertainment value. Is that the purpose of history to you? Other than mere length, how does that kind of history differ from a poem or song about the same event?

[Aristoddler]

Originally Posted by NoAngst

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how what you choose to believe and your commission of the same error I have already noted (i.e., that what is history to you is not history in fact) says nothing as to the truth about the past and should be read strictly for entertainment value. Is that the purpose of history to you? Other than mere length, how does that kind of history differ from a poem or song about the same event?

Prove Stalin did not invent the airplane.

Do not use written references, as the authors are only human, and are prone to error.

[NoAngst]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Of course not.

With the multiple reality version you have an infinite number of realities to cope with, the need then being to let go of the need for that sense of security, to succumb to the humanly impossible enormity of it.



That was reality, just as what now is reality will soon enough be replaced by the next one to come along, and yes, for as long as the mind creates the reality, the possibility of belief is crucial to the process, if you know what a belief is, how to do it. For somebody like me, reluctant to believe, I am equally devoid of a reality, personal or otherwise, hence a creative tendency.



Yes, absolutely. For somebody of a rational disposition it is impossible to understand without the evidence.

Which experiment, by the way? Do you mean to refer to our separate realities, as demonstrated by the course of this thread?

Hardly, I would have thought, evidence of us inhabiting an identical reality.



Of course: Different realities entail different accounts.



Objective truth as a practical notion is useful enough. It has got the job done for those of us within the working hypothesis of this reality, because from day to day the absolute truth is not so much of a worry, a best guess not only is, but has to be good enough.

Looking around for the after death travel brochures, that is usually when it begins to worry.



In which case you are not so alone. If only there were sufficient precision for me to remember where I have left a few of my things around this cluttered room here, today, when I need to find them again.

With regard then to the Duke of Medina Sidonia, et al, I stick with my original: It is all propaganda. There was always a reason for the writer to want you to prefer a particular account of it.

--- RH.

Your continued avoidance of the point made by the above experiment is duly noted. What you have written is again wholly beside the point, as have been the majority of your posts to this thread. You just keep mindlessly repeating your same belief, ignoring obvious counter-example and simply insisting that you are right. An intellectually honest person would at least try to accommodate counter-example. Not you. I do believe I have never encountered a more intellectually bankrupt individual on this or any other internet forum.

[NoAngst]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

Prove Stalin did not invent the airplane.

Do not use written references, as the authors are only human, and are prone to error.

Oh, brother.