It is logically impossible to know the past

[Aristoddler]

The position in the present may, if positioned in the right way, tell exactly of the past as it was recorded or experienced by someone who didn't know all the details.
The grassy knoll...prime example.
In fifty years, how will that story be told?
What about the survivors of Waco? How will that story unfold in the next fifty years?
Focus will help you discern what is believable from what is imaginable, but will it help you determine the truth?

[Refus]

Was that an attempt of an insult?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

The position in the present may, if positioned in the right way, tell exactly of the past as it was recorded or experienced by someone who didn't know all the details.
The grassy knoll...prime example.
In fifty years, how will that story be told?
What about the survivors of Waco? How will that story unfold in the next fifty years?
Focus will help you discern what is believable from what is imaginable, but will it help you determine the truth?

I know I was born, and that is a past event. I know there was an American Civil War. And that was a past event. I know there was a president of the United States named, John Adams. And that was a past event. I know John Kennedy was assassinated. That was a past event. I pretty well know he was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

There are certainly things we don't know about the past. But how does that show that it is we know nothing about the past, let alone that it is impossible to know about the past, let alone, that it is logically impossible to know about the past. That is as if someone were to say that since I don't know everybody's name, I know nobody's name; or since I don't know all the capitals of the South American countries, I know none of the capitals of the South American countries.

[l0ck]

every time someone reads someone elses writing it gets interpreted differently
all history is extremely exadurated due because realitys are percieved uniquely as individuals and each story gets interpreted differently
and again it comes down to if you want to believe it or not.. which is your decision.. you just either choose to believe it or not.. theres no logical decison its just your way of arriving at your truth.. be it through logical evidence or not

[Professer Frost]

So it is impossible to know the past clearly, objectively, and consistently? Then what is to stand between us and complete historical nihilism? Think about this: there are two sources of historical knowledge, namely human memories of events and the portions of those events that were ultimately written down and became (semi-) permanent historical records. Now if someone comes along who has both the ability and the desire to forcibly change these sources (like O’Brian in the third part of Orwell’s “1984”) then what is to keep us from living in a grey and dingy world where a Big Brother-ish authority is the only constant? I don’t know. But perhaps someone here can come up with intelligent refutations of O’Brian’s arguments for relativism? Yes? Well I’m looking forward to hearing them!
-Professor Frost
P. S. I’m sorry I didn’t read the whole thread but my ability to wrap my mind around serious topics while reading online is severely limited. Which brings up a question: Is there some way to print out a whole thread at once? If so is there some way to make the thread consist of just text (i.e. only the names of users who made the posts and the texts of the posts themselves?) I’d appreciate any help you all could give me on this.
Thanks, PF

[chandler]

Originally Posted by Professer Frost

So it is impossible to know the past clearly, objectively, and consistently?

Ultimately the problem lies in what we MEAN when we use words like KNOW, Reality, etc. Are you asking about past as in histories or past as in personal past? Because either way one might argue that we can't "know". Because who's to say these memories haven't been implanted into our brains and they never actually happened? There are a number of possible objections right?

Regarding 1984 (great book ) I would say that it's certain possible (it wouldn't be contradictory) to say that our histories are all lies. It just seems more probable for me and for everyone else that our histories are not lies. Then again, probability doesn't really justify our belief...so...hmmm...

I guess to answer you're question...that's a good question.

[de Silentio]

But perhaps someone here can come up with intelligent refutations of O’Brian’s arguments for relativism?

O'Brian's reletivism requires double think. Without it, changing the known, directly experienced truth is impossible. For example, moving from being at war with a nation one day and bombarding the people with propaganda, to saying that we were never at war with that nation and are at war with another nation requires one to totally disregard their use of reason, which seems to be the goal with double think.

------

I agree with chandler, 1984 is a great book and you asked a good, relevent question. It's been a while since I read the book, so I would love to hear that I am wrong and why.