This is the article I found myself being most interested in. Through the article, the author is trying to disagree with the concept of the present and the past. He is throughout trying to differentiate the two times, hence representing time in a very linear structure.
However, in my opinion, there I always coexistence of both the present and the past and not one can exist without the other. Past takes birth from the present. So how can they be completely different altogether? They are highly interdependent on each other. The author also tries to contain the time in a concept of container.
This concept of time has a crucial impact in the circle of crime, punishment and injustice. Since no two events can occur twice, and no way under the same exact circumstances, who has the right to determine the crime and the punishment? In the article from the daily New Yorker and the movie 12 angry men, this point has been put across very clearly. Even though the event and the time lapse is the exact same, there are multiple pasts for multiple people within that. Thus for one crime, all the people involved had a different past, a different experience. While justifying a crime, how many points of view are taken into consideration? Even the minutest of the detail can be very crucial to a case and maybe the only possibility of saving someone innocent!
This is one of the very few aspects I would say where facts are of the utmost importance. Facts aren’t biased towards the defendant or the prosecutor or any other party if it exists. What happened happened, and there is no way to change that. It is to us to dig deep into the past and maybe solve a case mathematically and scientifically, rather than justifying a case based on someone’s opinion, someone’s background, or simply the body language.
Another point that struck me while reading this article, was that the past is not exactly the past for everyone. People fail to adapt the present and continue living in the past event which made a huge impact in their lives and they are unable to move on. Since they have a better and a clearer image of the ‘event’, are their recollections the most worthy and the most unbiased ones? I wonder how many innocent people have fallen prey to this concept of time and injustice, the very thought of it makes me cringe.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
History, time and knowledge in ancient India
One thing that I noticed while going through this article was that it was being written by an author with a single perspective. He is very much molded into his very limited western influence of thinking and sticks to it through most of the article.
The author keeps commenting on the history of India or rather the lack of it. He points out and comments on the ways of conception of knowledge which he considers to be an important reason of India’s apparent lack of history. However, India’s definition of conception of knowledge was highly experience based and did not leave behind evidences very obvious such as pictorial, literary etc. However, this does not prove of a place without a history. Several forms of historical evidences of ancient history in India is lost, due to numerous reasons, both naturally and due to the changing human nature, which over a period of time, forgets.
It just simply opposes the western ideology of historiography. James Mills, who never visited India decided to declare India as a history less place and blamed the Hindu civilizations and establishments for it for it. How is his comment strong enough to conclude the history of a place? Through the article, the author eventually brings down everything to a point where he is comparing two very different poles which eventually exaggerates the idea of the ‘eastern’ and ‘western’ thinking to be a completely different dimensions. He at lots of points in the article has described the western ideologies and concepts more advantageous and trying to declare it as the ultimate truth.
The author keeps commenting on the history of India or rather the lack of it. He points out and comments on the ways of conception of knowledge which he considers to be an important reason of India’s apparent lack of history. However, India’s definition of conception of knowledge was highly experience based and did not leave behind evidences very obvious such as pictorial, literary etc. However, this does not prove of a place without a history. Several forms of historical evidences of ancient history in India is lost, due to numerous reasons, both naturally and due to the changing human nature, which over a period of time, forgets.
It just simply opposes the western ideology of historiography. James Mills, who never visited India decided to declare India as a history less place and blamed the Hindu civilizations and establishments for it for it. How is his comment strong enough to conclude the history of a place? Through the article, the author eventually brings down everything to a point where he is comparing two very different poles which eventually exaggerates the idea of the ‘eastern’ and ‘western’ thinking to be a completely different dimensions. He at lots of points in the article has described the western ideologies and concepts more advantageous and trying to declare it as the ultimate truth.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Historical Event
“An event cannot enter history unless it’s been established as an fact.”
To begin with, I will move back to the often asked question, what is a fact? At what point does an assumption or a story establish itself as a fact? What/ Who is it determined by? Does the historian because of his power and tag the ultimate decision maker?
Now, when you look at an event, did it not happen because it has not been noticed and hence established as a fact and cannot be recorded in the history? Since no event in history can occur twice (or so I believe) under and within the same exact conditions, the only way it can be established as a fact is by recollections. Recollections the event and the people involved in it. These recollections can be oral, pictorial, literary etc. Are the facts based on these evidences to validate an event occurrence?
In Indian mythology, its story telling and word of mouth passed on from generations to generations. There are a very few scientific and numerical ‘facts’ which can confirm these events. So do the people stop believing it as their history? No, it stays true to them even though it doesn’t fully conform to the factual norms. In this aspect, the history is built up more due on the basis of traditions and beliefs.Hence I think, an event does not need to be fully established as a fact, in order to be remembered as a part of history.
To begin with, I will move back to the often asked question, what is a fact? At what point does an assumption or a story establish itself as a fact? What/ Who is it determined by? Does the historian because of his power and tag the ultimate decision maker?
Now, when you look at an event, did it not happen because it has not been noticed and hence established as a fact and cannot be recorded in the history? Since no event in history can occur twice (or so I believe) under and within the same exact conditions, the only way it can be established as a fact is by recollections. Recollections the event and the people involved in it. These recollections can be oral, pictorial, literary etc. Are the facts based on these evidences to validate an event occurrence?
In Indian mythology, its story telling and word of mouth passed on from generations to generations. There are a very few scientific and numerical ‘facts’ which can confirm these events. So do the people stop believing it as their history? No, it stays true to them even though it doesn’t fully conform to the factual norms. In this aspect, the history is built up more due on the basis of traditions and beliefs.Hence I think, an event does not need to be fully established as a fact, in order to be remembered as a part of history.
Monday, March 29, 2010
History, Time & Knowledge in Ancient India
I totally disagree with the fact that there was no history in India. It has been looked at traditionally and been preserved in the old way of books, scripts, scribbles, etc rather than modern scientific research. India forms a part of history just like any other country, just, in its own beautiful way. During the British times, there was a spread of racist comments floating around the country. One of the historians, James Mills, who never visited India and never knew much about its history, blamed the Hindu civilizations for the lack of history. In my opinion, that isn't a strong comment that can possible draw conclusions on Indian History being limited.
I agree that history does seem like a story out of the dreams for India, because they believed strongly in myths, but at the same time, this country made immense progress in subjects like Algebra, Astronomy, Geometry, Philosophy, etc - which, in my opinion, is history in itself! History doesnt have to always relate to kings and queens and who ruled when and what happened, its also about progression, about reality! something which is ancient but almost clear cut.
When Hajime Nakamura makes a comment about history books being all about fantasy, a question arises.. Who wrote the history of India? Why do people conclude that its not true. Agreed, that not everything mentioned in that book is true, but most of it should be - well, I jsut discovered that its MY opinion. So here aswell, opinion and perception comes into play!
What has been missed and what I feel is most important are the masterpieces of artists, the sculptures, the paintings, all that actually speaks the history of India. Its sad but true that, things like these have been neglected and it would be great if our generation brought them into light! Not only historians of today should take this initiative, I feel that we all should play our part in creating an interesting and better history of our country..
The History of Things
"He transposes, reduces, composes, and colors facsimile, like a painter, who in search for the identity of the subject, must discover a patterned set of properties that will elicit recognition all while conveying a new perception of the subject."
While portraying time, he portrays himself just by the way he interprets an event just by creating an awareness from his point of you. Heres when we can say, history is almost like being "personal" and as a commitment that the historian has to make. He bridges the gap between time and telling time.
Talking about time, what a historian tells, is what actually draws interest, by observing change and permanence, by marking the succession of events among stable settings, and by noting the contrast of varying rates of change.
The author makes a comment about the perception of the signal (now) and its impulse and its transmission (then). In my opinion we dont need to know the impulse and transmission of the signal, what is more important is the perception of the signal because that is what will strengthen the signals generated in the past. More than being actual, it is rather real, in the sense that people scoop out "borrowed ideas" from the past, yet at every moment the ideas keep changing and they form a totally new interpretation. So being actual doesnt quite make sense in this case as, its almost like taking away from reality and just sticking to an idea or tradition from the past which is weak to even express about.
Actuality was and probably never will be discovered by us as long as we have historians because its their job to draw our interest in their piece of art! Who wants to know about actuality these days? Time changes our perception and we just tag along...
While portraying time, he portrays himself just by the way he interprets an event just by creating an awareness from his point of you. Heres when we can say, history is almost like being "personal" and as a commitment that the historian has to make. He bridges the gap between time and telling time.
Talking about time, what a historian tells, is what actually draws interest, by observing change and permanence, by marking the succession of events among stable settings, and by noting the contrast of varying rates of change.
The author makes a comment about the perception of the signal (now) and its impulse and its transmission (then). In my opinion we dont need to know the impulse and transmission of the signal, what is more important is the perception of the signal because that is what will strengthen the signals generated in the past. More than being actual, it is rather real, in the sense that people scoop out "borrowed ideas" from the past, yet at every moment the ideas keep changing and they form a totally new interpretation. So being actual doesnt quite make sense in this case as, its almost like taking away from reality and just sticking to an idea or tradition from the past which is weak to even express about.
Actuality was and probably never will be discovered by us as long as we have historians because its their job to draw our interest in their piece of art! Who wants to know about actuality these days? Time changes our perception and we just tag along...
The Historical Event
An event cannot enter into a history until it has been established as fact....A stereotypical comment, in my opinion! Facts exist the way they are. History doesn’t make a fact a fact, only because it is just a subject under which it is established. History tells a story using these existing facts only to make an impact on the reader. When we talk about history, it isn’t always “factful” because it is true that people who interpret it tell the story in million other ways. Its never stationary, specially in today’s world when our generation forms a mix of different people from different backgrounds.
Every year the history of events change maybe through form, chronology, thought, place, etc – its never constant. But, it has been understood that change, doesn’t happen to history, but it happens to the facts that lead to making history. Talk about a fort which is about 3000 years old – the history of the place has already happened, but whats happened after that? Thats what our generation should be questioning at this moment.
What is the difference between historical past and practical past? Some say its one of the same, but its not really the point. Practical past is something more personal, something which you or me see in our memories, something thats vague or there or not there, something that isn’t the so called “constant” historical past, like planning a party or a crime case at law. Historical past is something to do with what happened in those days. Something that we don’t face in our minds, something thats totally different from what we think. Its more like studying what happened then probably from a book or from the web.
How should history be told? In my opinion, the whole idea of writing the past should evolve with time, as modern philosophers would prefer doing something scientific rather than the traditional way of portraying history by dramatising it. The telling of history should be done faster and more interestingly instead of mere pages and pages of type. Since science is almost accurate, it can applied in telling a story of the past by finding what is THE fact thats creating the story!
Monday, March 22, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
between photos
this is my final submission for this course. it's a series of annotated images, go check out and do give feedback!
History, Time and Knowledge in Ancient India.
When I was reading this article and some things about how Indian history is viewed struck me as problematic.
To begin with, one of the most influential sources of indian history to the west, is Mills' The History of British India. This book was written by someone who never even visited the country of his writings. Not only that, he sought the patronage of the British East India Company. That means, this work most likely has had military underpinnings. If Mill was looking for things to justify British colonization, he could find them. But the power of media is such that, now, most historical views on india are based on the information from such works. In trying to remain objective and correct in recording the past, and making "intelligent" judegements on past events, historians can lead or mislead entire populations.
This hegemony of sorts also lead me to question why there is absolutely no representation of south Indian expression in this entire article. The identity of an "Indian" is an imagined one. When we refer to ancient India, we mostly refer to Hindu India and more importantly, to Aryan India (somewhere in the article they mention: 'the timeless authority of the vedic reveleation'). I can think of a number of poetic texts in the Tamil language that narrate stories of Kings and empires(still, I've never come across dates being mentioned) circa the greek and roman civilizations, but these texts are hardly absorbed into the canon of ancient indian writing. This is because of a long and conscious blindness to Dravidian culture by the Aryans. I feel that Sanskrit has always been the language that embodies India not because it is the oldest language, but because: before Vasco da Gama, anyone travelling to india from the west came via the Hindu Khush. To get to South India is a long and arduous journey. And it is a journey past celebrated sanksrit speaking cultures. By the time anyone gets to the land of the Natives, they are already viewing the land influenced by Aryan thinking. In ancient india, Kingdoms of the south were just that, seperate kingdoms. But when we look at India now, we put together those many cultures and make generalisations. Within those generalisations, the aryan, the sanksrit speaker and the hindu stand tall. This, i find, is highly problematic.
Moving on, the author mentions that he is looking only at philosophies of six schools of thought as his focus for inquiry. He bases his knowledge of these schools (schools that propound the importance of experiential learning) based on documents written, most likely, by historians like Mill and Hegel. Traces of ancient India are hard to find. they have been destroyed by forces of nature, they have been codified in order to be protected from invaders, the codes have been forgotten by the children of the children of the children.. I can only disagree with Mill and Hegel's arguments because I can comprehend them, because i have been taught 'the western codes of thinking'. But answers to questions about ancient india cannot come from those codes, or a series of documents about indian philosophies in those codes.
This is highly subjective, but i feel like the people who know the language of the answers to these questions can never understand the language of the question.
To begin with, one of the most influential sources of indian history to the west, is Mills' The History of British India. This book was written by someone who never even visited the country of his writings. Not only that, he sought the patronage of the British East India Company. That means, this work most likely has had military underpinnings. If Mill was looking for things to justify British colonization, he could find them. But the power of media is such that, now, most historical views on india are based on the information from such works. In trying to remain objective and correct in recording the past, and making "intelligent" judegements on past events, historians can lead or mislead entire populations.
This hegemony of sorts also lead me to question why there is absolutely no representation of south Indian expression in this entire article. The identity of an "Indian" is an imagined one. When we refer to ancient India, we mostly refer to Hindu India and more importantly, to Aryan India (somewhere in the article they mention: 'the timeless authority of the vedic reveleation'). I can think of a number of poetic texts in the Tamil language that narrate stories of Kings and empires(still, I've never come across dates being mentioned) circa the greek and roman civilizations, but these texts are hardly absorbed into the canon of ancient indian writing. This is because of a long and conscious blindness to Dravidian culture by the Aryans. I feel that Sanskrit has always been the language that embodies India not because it is the oldest language, but because: before Vasco da Gama, anyone travelling to india from the west came via the Hindu Khush. To get to South India is a long and arduous journey. And it is a journey past celebrated sanksrit speaking cultures. By the time anyone gets to the land of the Natives, they are already viewing the land influenced by Aryan thinking. In ancient india, Kingdoms of the south were just that, seperate kingdoms. But when we look at India now, we put together those many cultures and make generalisations. Within those generalisations, the aryan, the sanksrit speaker and the hindu stand tall. This, i find, is highly problematic.
Moving on, the author mentions that he is looking only at philosophies of six schools of thought as his focus for inquiry. He bases his knowledge of these schools (schools that propound the importance of experiential learning) based on documents written, most likely, by historians like Mill and Hegel. Traces of ancient India are hard to find. they have been destroyed by forces of nature, they have been codified in order to be protected from invaders, the codes have been forgotten by the children of the children of the children.. I can only disagree with Mill and Hegel's arguments because I can comprehend them, because i have been taught 'the western codes of thinking'. But answers to questions about ancient india cannot come from those codes, or a series of documents about indian philosophies in those codes.
This is highly subjective, but i feel like the people who know the language of the answers to these questions can never understand the language of the question.
Roy W. Perret History, Time and Knowledge in Ancient India
“Genuine knowledge, it is assumed, is presentative, not representative.”
If all the knowledge I ‘possess’ or will create is representative then I am no better than a pen drive. My mind is then just a store house of information aptly tossed in an out. What does it mean to be really alive?
The reading discusses why Indians (on geographical basis) haven’t created Historic records of their lives, culture and times over the centuries. Observing myself reading the sheet I noticed how much pressure I exerted because of identifying with the text- being an Indian. But having born and brought up in a liberal atmosphere my whole life; my family school and college, I completely related to the idea that Ancient Indian schools advocated of perception, inference and testimony as the vital means of knowledge. Perception, inference and testimony being experiential and not representative serve as real tools of learning, of knowing things for oneself.
Isn’t it only when we learn something for our self does the knowledge exist to be true? It’s funny though, these cycles of change humans have indulged within linear time. Hundreds of years ago the people of ancient India talked of liberation and understanding oneself as the real goal of life- that real knowledge grows inside oneself and cannot be found in external mediums no matter how much we pursue them. And today the 21st century Indian is caught between the dilemma of the right way of life- between the engineer and technician who has through exams and memorization worked his way up the materialistic ladder versus the birth of young individuals who’ve realized that in this system they have no identity- that everything they have gained from ‘memory’ is just a skill and not a strength. Today we are reverting to these ancient men from Indian history trying to un-learn the useless factual knowledge of the conditioned mind and understand what exact role does ‘memory, documentation, representation’ play in our life.
Don’t take this too seriously but how much of everyday living I give it up to our ancient ancestors saying “of course they knew better- they were way smarter than we were; they were far ahead of us in their thoughts on the meaning of life-religion-philosophy even understandings of sciences- and not only their thought processes but even their skills were much ahead.” Though this is highly debatable it does seem like a meteor hit earth somewhere between long long ago where self-actualization was all over the place and today where no one is aware about anything to do with themselves.
I came across this passage through my personal readings, it’s interesting and could throws some light on the above quote..
“....I must cultivate memory, strengthen memory by practice, by discipline, to be something, to achieve, to gain, which means continuation in time. So, through time we hope to achieve the timeless, through time we hope to gain the eternal. Can you do that? Can you catch the eternal in the net of time, through memory, which is of time? The timeless can be only when memory, which is the 'me' and the 'mine', ceases. If you see the truth of that - that through time the timeless cannot be understood or received - then we go into the problem of memory. The memory of technical things is essential; but the psychological memory that maintains the self, the 'me' and the 'mine', that gives identification and self-continuance, is wholly detrimental to life and to reality. When one sees the truth of that, the false drops away; therefore, there is no psychological retention of yesterday's experience.”
History, time and knowledge in ancient India
I couldn’t find any single quote i wanted to respond to, so i’m just addressing the article as a whole.
The main gripe i have with this article, aside from the author’s numerous errors, and his seeming inability to let go of the same western methods of thought he seems to be so conscious about in his framing, is its incompleteness. While the author seems quite convinced about this difference in the “conception of knowledge” being the sole, or main, reason for India’s apparent ahistoricity, it still seems merely to skim the surface of the actual reasons, and seems too much like a quick cop-out, one typical of a very Western empirical way of thinking, where there is often assumed to be an immediate solution to questions. Though i can’t really claim to know nearly as much about this subject, i still feel as if the explanation uses merely a short excerpt from the larger picture of the prevailing “Indian” philosophy (another fact that makes me cringe-what’s the India he keeps referring to? It was never a whole country then). His use of words, his usage of excessively simplifying categorical tools all seem to amplify this. A lot for him still seems to come down to apparent diametric opposites (“Indian” and “western”, representative and presentative, historicity and ahistoricity, fantasy and reality) between these cultures....so much so that the whole article seems to be a study in attempting to further the apparent romanticising of the “eastern” mind as being a polar opposite, and an ideal. In short, the author himself is approaching this with a conditioned mindset which he is trying to explain.
There are arguably a number of advantages to the “Western mode of thought” (sorry, that’s just a convenient way of summing it up, however general), and I’m in no way saying that these methods are largely incorrect....it just seems very limiting that it is the only way that we allow ourselves to look at things. But then, that’s one of its features....branding itself as the absolute.
This article got me thinking...what would it look like, if a culture actually did have no history? Is it even possible? Is a notion of history just a feature of a linear conception of time? How does a non-linear representation of time even look? Is it possible to know in our universe?
The Cave and the Light
“This entire allegory, I said, you.............................................life must have his eye fixed.”
The unfortunate thing about a metaphor is that, it’s poetic nature tends to appeal to highly non-rational aspect of an individual’s thinking. In searching for comparisons with real life scenarios, simplicity is often brought into these topics, making them more accessible, definitely, but, only at a very superficial level. The ancient Greeks seemed all too happy to fall into this trap, but ultimately, finding an extremely convincing vessel for a view makes discussion a little difficult, as you’re limited to the visuals of an image which may not be able to bring about all aspects of the subject.
This allegory is a fascinating one...but it draws clear hierarchies between modes of thought, and seems very absolutist in many aspects of its design. I think on some level I’m blaming a lot of the fallacies we see in predominant Western thought upon this single, very influential, metaphor, which probably explains a lot of my gripes with it. Plato speaks explicitly of an absolute truth in the viewing of the environment through this “light”....a truth which most people are ignorant about, and an ideal towards which every individual should strive. But what if an individual should know nothing but the shadows and the infinitely complex patterns they can also cast on the cave’s uneven wall? Does that make their lives worth less? For these people, the shadows are the reality. If they have no way of knowing what exists behind them, or what’s creating the shadows, it’s arguable that they aren’t losing much.
To bring up another point, this entire metaphor for the cave, with the “less fortunate” shackled at one end, and the free, enlightened being dancing around the light, itself is seems to be contained in a space that’s a mere portion of the rest of the world. Clearly this cave is just a part of something larger, that its inhabitants cannot access. If there can be no issue with that, and a relative ignorance can still be considered an ideal, why can’t the same apply to those tied at the bottom of the cave? Sure, they’re shackled...but similarly, the enlightened ones are trapped within this limited space, and equally so, despite what freedom they have. If the prisoners cannot know what freedom they are lacking, why should it matter to them? And when one of the fortunate ones returns to “help” their previous companions, how are they giving themselves the right to make this decision? Why have these moral values been constructed only in this singular way?
Perhaps, those in the light can see more of the world around them, but they’ll never see the shadows dancing on the walls again. And that, I feel, is equally lamentable.
The History of things
“The emptiness of actuality can be estimated by the possibilities that fail to attain realization in any instant; only when they are few can actuality seem full.”
Upon reading this statement, I am reminded of two other quotations I came across recently:
a)”When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”-Sherlock Holmes, and
b)” An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.”-Laplace
In short, I don’t really see the validity of this statement. The author, like Holmes, seems to be assuming that the full set of “possible” events and outcomes is a finite quantity, and hence that actuality is, to some extent, accurately determinable. The second quote states that once the actuality of the present is realized, the future would cease to be unknown, and would perhaps be something we could directly experience in the present (I am, in a way, comparing it to a point I made in one of my previous essays).
But it seems that actuality is something that will never be even moderately known to us, so the amount of thought that goes into this subject just seems to be a little futile. As the author mentions, the inadequacies of our senses prevent us from ever attaining actuality, an obstacle even our technological advancement cannot overcome.
But it’s interesting to note how the nature of actuality can actually differ between species, or even, people. Prior to this i assumed actuality was merely a description of existence, and everything that goes into it, including events from the past. But the author’s argument that the events from the past cannot be known to us directly, and only through (rather dubious) signals, hence should be excluded from the definition of actuality, does make sense. The point he seems to be making here is that our senses, and only our senses, can actually receive direct inputs from the world around us to shape our notion of actuality. Here, i wonder if that’s an assumption that can be made...and whether our senses are actually “perfect” enough to be making accurate sense of the world around us. But then again, i guess we’ll never know any alternative.
But one point i don’t really agree with is how he claims that since “the perception of a signal happened ‘now’, but its impulse and transmission happened ‘then’”, we have to exclude the past from notions of actuality. It doesn’t matter when an event actually occurred, and when the signal was sparked and transmitted, as time itself is a subjective quantity, dependent on the space and nature of observation. Hence, all that should matter is the perception of the signal, not the generation of it.
The historian and his facts
“My first answer therefore to the question “what is History?” is that it is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.”
Funnily enough, even though he seems to be very aware of a changing order, the author seems unable to lose the comfortable pragmatic nature he was born into. He keeps searching for a “middle ground” between two apparent extremes, but, I regard “middle grounds” as excessively safe spaces which ultimately just go to show a lack of the courage in the individual striving to get there. The middle ground is additionally always has a very arbitrary demarcation. I think a struggle to define the role of a historian is ultimately irrelevant. Over time, the historian’s role is going to change, and ultimately the statement the author makes above seems to serve the exact same purpose as an ‘incantation’ like “Wie es eingentlich gewesen”, as they both are drawing blanket definitions across all the individuals within a certain period of time. The role of a historian, I feel, can only be determined by the historian himself. As he can, for himself, decide the relative subjectivity or objectivity of facts, as he chooses to be relevant (or she. I’m a little lazy, not sexist).
There’s all this brouhaha regarding the nature of”facts”, but it seems like there’s a point being missed somewhere. There’s something valid to be got from approaching a subject from any of these viewpoints, and limiting ourselves to any single one is going to lead to having to eventually bog ourselves down with whatever snags it comes with as well.
Anyway, that aside, the “fact” to me has become a sort of ironical term...I’m still conditioned into looking at the word to define a definite, hard, verifiable and absolute truth; but, past my conditioning, I know that no such thing exists, strictly as a “fact”. Therefore, I regard a historian’s principle job to be with interpretation....as it’s not just about the relations between facts anymore; it’s the interpretation of the fact as well. Though, since I’m breaking the absolute nature of a fact, I think this also implies an expanding of the definition of a “historian”. It’s not a strict discipline anymore; it’s a necessary aspect of everyday life. If I cannot define strongly a fact, and hence a historical fact, how can I define the one who has to deal with these notions? Even in the happening of an event, we cannot observe it in a common-denominator fashion....so as only the memory remains (and this is NOT in any way downgrading the value of a memory), how can we entertain the hope for absoluticity? (It’s not a word, but it should be)
While what I’m saying does sound excessively idealistic and extremist, I guess it’s just a thought I’m exploring, and I’m just hoping that this exploration bears fruit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)