I got pretty bored during English class today for a couple of reasons - I don't agree with the way it's taught, and I already knew what was being taught today (Writing proposals, I wrote 2 proposals last year, 1 to the Head of Department for English, and 1 to the Head of Department of Student Development. The one I wrote to the English Head was passed on to the Principal - I was asking for a Debate Club to be established in my school.). So I got out my little notebook where I would write about my thoughts and whatnot.
Today I got to thinking about Chaplin's speech in 'The Great Dictator'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not my business: I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible: Jew, gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another; human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness, not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there’s room for everyone, and the good Earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful.
But we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.
We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood, for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me I say, “Do not despair.”
The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die. And the power they took from the people will return to the people, and so long as men die, liberty will never perish.
Soldiers, don’t give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you; who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel; who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder.
Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate. Only the unloved hate. The unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers, don’t fight for slavery. Fight for liberty.
In the 17th chapter of St Luke it is written, “The kingdom of God is within man.” Not one man, nor a group of men, but in all men. In you.
You the people have the power: the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You the people have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy let us use that power: Let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age and security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie. They do not fulfill their promise. They never will. Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people. Now let us fight to fulfill that promise. Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness.
Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us all unite!
I know that I'am going to come off as uninformed when my rambling below is read, but I would just like to put my thoughts "out there" for judgement and criticism. I also realise that I don't usually make much sense and that my analogies are more often than not improper, nevertheless, I'm here to learn, not to impress.
Chaplin's speech in 'The Great Dictator' should be, and probably is, one of the greatest speeches ever made in both film and 'real' life. The ideas that he has portrayed on humanity, the magnificent vignette that he has painted with his powerful words to convey his beliefs still remain relevant to this day.
Has the entire human race lost it's way? Has greed consumed our souls, poisoned our minds thoughts? What exactly is 'the way'? It seems that we, as an entire species were once 'pure' in a sense. Kindness and gentleness once flooded the world, but as time passed, as our greed - to be represented metaphorically here as a giant ball of fire in the sky - grew, our passion or lust for an abundance in everything in our lives burn more furiously in us, the flood has dried up. What now plagues us is an unbearable drought.
People claim that religion is a poison, but truly, what is it? In this context, a religion can be perceived as a very poorly run factory. Sometimes it can produce the same liquid that flooded the world before, but that very rarely happens without the factory injecting foreign chemicals in it that makes the consumer intolerant, ignorant, and hateful. The effects of the chemicals can sometimes be so overwhelming that the main product simply becomes useless.
However, all the talk about ''going back to how things were'' (not a quote) seems absurd. How reasonable or logical is it to adopt an 'archaic' lifestyle in such modern times? But upon further consideration of this rather radical idea, one realises that within it lies the blueprints or the infrastructure of a utopia - a modern one. When we view the world (humans), we realise that out shell has advanced with time. I'am hesitant to use the adjective 'adequately' in the previous statement. The same can not be said of our interior - our values and principals.
Hmm, it seems that I completely forgot to elaborate about the whole 'blueprint' thing. I guess what I'm trying to say is just that we have to start working on our values, but yet, our exterior should not decline. It should remain constant or best-case-scenario, improve.
The graph above is of course inaccurate because it leaves quite a few questions that begs to be answered. What exactly is the scale which is used to determine the y-axis? How viable is it to put 2 vastly different abstract ideas on a simple graph for comparism on similarly abstract factors? How should we view progress or advancement or quality without external factors or personal bias affecting or judgement?
That's all I was able to write, I began a paragraph that goes," War is a very 'deep' topic to write about. It is very difficult to talk about just one aspect of it without going waist-deep in the topic." But I tore the page out because I felt like a complete idiot.
On an unrelated note, here's my favourite Allegro (Vivace?) I uploaded. Isn't the sea of violins that comes on just awesome?
On March 26 2012 18:13 firehand101 wrote: If you wouldnt mind....could you write that paragraph again? the one you ripped out?
It was really a pleasure to listen to your words, and that chaplain speech was breathtaking. Keep writing, and never stop
I'm glad that you enjoyed reading what I have to say. I write these blogs because I don't have anybody to talk to irl so this is my only form of communication with other people.
I'll try to write that paragraph again either tonight or tomorrow when I get to 'thinking mode' again.
On March 26 2012 18:09 Azera wrote: I think Chaplin himself wrote it. Does it say somewhere that he didn't? >.<
Well, I know Chaplin was pretty much the one man show in terms of writing and directing for that movie, so we can assume he wrote it. I was wondering possibly if someone knew if perhaps someone else leant the idea/piece for that specific monologue. Either way, it's a pretty good speech/monologue.
On March 26 2012 19:04 Wrongspeedy wrote: I wrote a blog a while back hoping someone might post that speech in response :S. I listen to it probably once a month hahaha.
Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers
Clear national barriers are exactly what is needed for peace! Look at Japan. They have well-defended borders, strict immigration policy and no diversity. Consequently, they have no governmental agencies counting how many of whom one hires, no forced busing, no civil-rights acts, no racial riots, no "diversity training" or endless lawsuits, and very low crime rates.
Other comments:
- The greatest enemy of humanity in the early 20C was not fascism, but communism. Hitler, faults aside, saved the West by stopping Soviet expansion. - The term "democracy" is used as pure drivel in this speech, devoid of any rational of scientific meaning. It is only used to elicit emotional responses. Hitler was democratically elected.
Finally, to poison the well: Chaplin was a friend of Max Eastman, who was a friend, admirer and translator of the mass murderer Trotsky.
Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers
Clear national barriers are exactly what is needed for peace! Look at Japan. They have well-defended borders, strict immigration policy and no diversity. Consequently, they have no governmental agencies counting how many of whom one hires, no forced busing, no civil-rights acts, no racial riots, no "diversity training" or endless lawsuits, and very low crime rates.
Other comments:
- The greatest enemy of humanity in the early 20C was not fascism, but communism. Hitler, faults aside, saved the West by stopping Soviet expansion. - The term "democracy" is used as pure drivel in this speech, devoid of any rational of scientific meaning. It is only used to elicit emotional responses. Hitler was democratically elected.
Finally, to poison the well: Chaplin was a friend of Max Eastman, who was a friend, admirer and translator of the mass murderer Trotsky.
That's an interesting perspective! I enjoyed reading it.
Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers
Clear national barriers are exactly what is needed for peace! Look at Japan. They have well-defended borders, strict immigration policy and no diversity. Consequently, they have no governmental agencies counting how many of whom one hires, no forced busing, no civil-rights acts, no racial riots, no "diversity training" or endless lawsuits, and very low crime rates.
Other comments:
- The greatest enemy of humanity in the early 20C was not fascism, but communism. Hitler, faults aside, saved the West by stopping Soviet expansion. - The term "democracy" is used as pure drivel in this speech, devoid of any rational of scientific meaning. It is only used to elicit emotional responses. Hitler was democratically elected.
Finally, to poison the well: Chaplin was a friend of Max Eastman, who was a friend, admirer and translator of the mass murderer Trotsky.
Soviet expansion only started following the 2nd world war in countries from which the Soviet troops had driven the German troops. Claiming that Hitler stopped a Soviet expansion is factually wrong. He even made a pact with Stalin to seperate Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union.
Hitler never was democratically elected but put into the office by a group of people that got put into their positions by the Reichspräsident at the time. The democratically elected parliament at the time was dissolved by the Reichspräsident. Later elections, that legitimised Hitler's gouvernment, were restricted in the amout of political parties that could be elected.
Claiming that knowing somebody, who is a friend and admirer of a mass murderer, while trying to paint Hitler as a not that bad guy just is ... funny.
edit: Your source for Trotsky, basically is anti semitic and in no way gives any references.
What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes. Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve.
On March 26 2012 20:10 Drunken.Jedi wrote: What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes. Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve.
I guess I was being a little foggy with that part. I did not mean that greed did not exist.
On March 26 2012 20:07 Potling wrote: Naming the Jewish role in communism is not "anti-semitic".
You know, it's funny if we argue long enough the amount of conspiracies that "the jews" partook in will just increase.
I am content with you not having anything to say to refute the arguments i made and hope you will one day see, that the sources you are using, are blinded by a agenda that is inhumane and based in hatred.
On March 26 2012 20:07 Potling wrote: Naming the Jewish role in communism is not "anti-semitic".
You know, it's funny if we argue long enough the amount of conspiracies that "the jews" partook in will just increase.
I am content with you not having anything to say to refute the arguments i made and hope you will one day see, that the sources you are using, are blinded by a agenda that is inhumane and based in hatred.
On March 26 2012 20:07 Potling wrote: Naming the Jewish role in communism is not "anti-semitic".
You know, it's funny if we argue long enough the amount of conspiracies that "the jews" partook in will just increase.
I am content with you not having anything to say to refute the arguments i made and hope you will one day see, that the sources you are using, are blinded by a agenda that is inhumane and based in hatred.
Please don't let this be another debate.
Not going to :D Just can't stand things that are wrong and not based on any hard evidence
Humanity evolved to be a lot of things, that are not pretty to look at. We are xenophobic, violent and not able to care for more than around 150 people and only have a intimate clique of around 12 people. So if we would live by these "standards" set in evolution we would basically all start killing each other at some point.
However we have the gift of rationallity and complex abstract concepts. Using these we are able to overcome our primitve roots and at some point achieve a state in whiche we will know what it means to be happy, without hurting or abusing other humans. But there is still some time we have to spend until we come to that point.
On March 26 2012 20:07 Potling wrote: Naming the Jewish role in communism is not "anti-semitic".
You know, it's funny if we argue long enough the amount of conspiracies that "the jews" partook in will just increase.
I am content with you not having anything to say to refute the arguments i made and hope you will one day see, that the sources you are using, are blinded by a agenda that is inhumane and based in hatred.
Please don't let this be another debate.
Not going to :D Just can't stand things that are wrong and not based on any hard evidence
Humanity evolved to be a lot of things, that are not pretty to look at. We are xenophobic, violent and not able to care for more than around 150 people and only have a intimate clique of around 12 people. So if we would live by these "standards" set in evolution we would basically all start killing each other at some point.
However we have the gift of rationallity and complex abstract concepts. Using these we are able to overcome our primitve roots and at some point achieve a state in whiche we will know what it means to be happy, without hurting or abusing other humans. But there is still some time we have to spend until we come to that point.
On March 26 2012 20:07 Potling wrote: Naming the Jewish role in communism is not "anti-semitic".
You know, it's funny if we argue long enough the amount of conspiracies that "the jews" partook in will just increase.
I am content with you not having anything to say to refute the arguments i made and hope you will one day see, that the sources you are using, are blinded by a agenda that is inhumane and based in hatred.
Please don't let this be another debate.
Not going to :D Just can't stand things that are wrong and not based on any hard evidence
Humanity evolved to be a lot of things, that are not pretty to look at. We are xenophobic, violent and not able to care for more than around 150 people and only have a intimate clique of around 12 people. So if we would live by these "standards" set in evolution we would basically all start killing each other at some point.
However we have the gift of rationallity and complex abstract concepts. Using these we are able to overcome our primitve roots and at some point achieve a state in whiche we will know what it means to be happy, without hurting or abusing other humans. But there is still some time we have to spend until we come to that point.
Now THAT is going down in my book of thoughts.
If you are intrested in actuall research that is going on in the area that explores, what parts of our behaviour are founded in our evolutionary path, like our habit of preferring sweet, salty and fatty over salad, you might want to research a bit of Sociobiology. Pretty intresting and WIDE topic :D
In my mind the speech is intended to inspire and not to instruct. There are no universal truths in what he is saying, so don't look to this for wisdom. Chaplin is asking us to look inside ourselves for right and wrong, and not to blindly follow others who have sinister intentions. I think you are focusing too much on the part where he is talking about modern life inspiring evil. He is only saying that modern methods have created wealth, but instead of this benefiting everyone, greed has made it so that some people get rich whilst others are still in unnecessary poverty.
I will concede that my knowledge about WW2 is limited. Your rebuttals may be right.
There are really two extremes in this issue. One is too scared to discuss the elephant in the room. I get the impression you belong to this group. You will reject all arguments showing Jews in a non-praising light as "blinded by an agenda that is inhumane and based in hatred". You deem being labeled a "Nazi" as a fate worse than death. And of course we have the other extreme, who could get a flat tire and blame a Jewish conspiracy. It's really just silly. Debating with ideologues is generally pointless - they will attack and ignore arguments that violate their comfort zone. This applies to both ends of the spectrum. That's one of the reasons we have so little honest discussion about Jewish issues. The reasonable medium recognizes that Jews are a powerful group with a lot of influence. They also generally have a keen sense of their group identity and some Jews view their work as advancing Jewish interests, sometimes at the expense of non-Jews, such as their involvement in the communist movement.
On March 26 2012 20:10 Drunken.Jedi wrote: What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes. Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve.
I guess I was being a little foggy with that part. I did not mean that greed did not exist.
Chaplin's words are poetic and moving but I don't think he really brings anything substantial to light. It is noble to aim for such high intentions, but they only get you so far. One of the things that made the movie Dark Knight amazing was how it tackled the idea of protecting something by being the villain. Chaplin lays out what we should aim to achieve, but he doesn't discuss how, and that is the difficult part. It's great to walk the high road, but there will be moments when there isn't a right answer, there will be no "good guy" or "bad guy" and we still have to make a decision. Where 10,000 dead is better than 1,000,000 dead, and no magnitude of good intentions will make it so that you save everyone.
Trigun, the anime, does an interesting job of exploring that idea as well, how far you can push the concept that you should get out of any situation without hurting ANY party involved, no matter what. And when you run out of options, when you have to kill to live, how that changes you. And you see it from both sides, people that learn to shoot first to protect themselves, and those still willing to put themselves at risk to save a stranger and what it all means.
On March 26 2012 20:10 Drunken.Jedi wrote: What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes. Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve.
I guess I was being a little foggy with that part. I did not mean that greed did not exist.
Then what did you mean?
Maybe something along the lines of that the Sun was there,.but it wasn't.strong enough.
Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
On March 27 2012 09:28 sam!zdat wrote: Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
Cheers.
Thanks for the recommendation, but I reading list is max'd out at the moment =( I'll keep the title somewhere though
On March 27 2012 09:28 sam!zdat wrote: Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
Cheers.
Thanks for the recommendation, but I reading list is max'd out at the moment =( I'll keep the title somewhere though
On March 27 2012 09:28 sam!zdat wrote: Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
Cheers.
Thanks for the recommendation, but I reading list is max'd out at the moment =( I'll keep the title somewhere though
Thanks!
Bro, I know the feeling.
Reading "The History of Love" by Nicole Krauss atm, going to read the 4th edition of the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. Haven't read the first 3 though >.<
On March 26 2012 20:10 Drunken.Jedi wrote: What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes. Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve.
I guess I was being a little foggy with that part. I did not mean that greed did not exist.
Then what did you mean?
Maybe something along the lines of that the Sun was there,.but it wasn't.strong enough.
On March 26 2012 20:10 Drunken.Jedi wrote: What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes. Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve.
I guess I was being a little foggy with that part. I did not mean that greed did not exist.
Then what did you mean?
Maybe something along the lines of that the Sun was there,.but it wasn't.strong enough.
What does that mean?
Something like how the Sun shines in the Antarctic from time to time but yet it doesn't melt completely. Come to think of it, should have used ice instead of water.
Thank you, I know what the word means, but putting the word to seem into a statement does not mean that I should be exempt from any criticism. Putting the word "seems" in there indicates that you're not quite sure whether your statement is true, but what I'm pointing out is that it is false. As far as I see it, you now have two viable options: you can either retract your statement or give reasons why you think it is true after all.
I have to go with Drunken.Jedi. While you may only say that we "seems" to be greedier, Pascal in the mid-XVIIth century already stated that man lived in misery after losing the paradise of Eden.
The greatest massacre in history occurred during the conquest of America. The Middle-Ages were one of the most violent periods in history.
Solidarity seems to be partially motivated by precarity, and as our society raises individual comfort, it seems to decline. This however is only true for the higher tiers of the western way of life, which is much less than "humans in general".
A quick word about the involvement of Jews in the funding of communism : I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject myself, but my grandfather is. He has led a personal research on similar matters, and he told me that many jewish banks did indeed fund Lenin and the bolcheviks. Now, before jumping to conspiracy theories, one must keep in mind that it probably was to fight the Russian nobility who maintained an archaic feudal system and was openly hostile to foreign banks, among which many were jewish. Why so many jewish banks? Simple, because they originally weren't allowed to own land. Finance was the only business they could turn to (we're talking about the Middle-Ages here).
On March 27 2012 20:16 Drunken.Jedi wrote: Thank you, I know what the word means, but putting the word to seem into a statement does not mean that I should be exempt from any criticism. Putting the word "seems" in there indicates that you're not quite sure whether your statement is true, but what I'm pointing out is that it is false. As far as I see it, you now have two viable options: you can either retract your statement or give reasons why you think it is true after all.
Thanks for pointing that out, but as said in the OP
I know that I'am going to come off as uninformed when my rambling below is read, but I would just like to put my thoughts "out there" for judgement and criticism. I also realise that I don't usually make much sense and that my analogies are more often than not improper, nevertheless, I'm here to learn, not to impress.
Okay, this is becoming tiresome. Could you please stop dodging?
The assertion that humanity was better and kinder in the past is quite a central point both in Chaplin's speech and in your elaborations. I challenged that assertion because I think it is completely false and that the very opposite is the case.
Now in light of that, do you still think that your original assertion is true? If so please give reasons for that. If not, please acknowledge that.
On March 27 2012 20:45 Drunken.Jedi wrote: Okay, this is becoming tiresome. Could you please stop dodging?
The assertion that humanity was better and kinder in the past is quite a central point both in Chaplin's speech and in your elaborations. I challenged that assertion because I think it is completely false and that the very opposite is the case.
Now in light of that, do you still think that your original assertion is true? If so please give reasons for that. If not, please acknowledge that.
Dodging? I know that I was wrong to say that, so what do you want me to do? Do you want me to edit it our of the OP? Do you want an apology for my incorrect assertion? If that is what you want, my response to you is a hearty "fuck you" because I already declared in the OP that not everything I say will make sense or be correct.
You will not learn if you don't at least try to defend your assumptions. Sometimes I express an opinion that is contrary to my beliefs simply to get a debate going. If you really don't have anything to say after someone says you're wrong, it means you didn't think this through. But it's ok because we almost never really reflect on things. However, to learn from that, you should sit down and think of at least one thing to say in defense of your opinions.
That people in general were better and kinder in the past is not a central tenet of this speech.
The industrial revolution had provided more food, clothes and all kinds of material goods that previously ordinary people would not have been able to afford. I'm pretty sure that if you look at life in the 1930s compared to the 1900s you would see a huge change in the lifestyles of the poor. Ordinary people had moved from generally working for themselves in the fields to working in factories for rich men.
The advances in technology had facilitated the first world war, in as much as humanity now had the capacity to travel the huge distances required to wage war on a grand scale. The war leading to many ordinary people being drafted into service as soldiers. For what purpose? It surely wasn't to benefit the ordinary man and woman. They were fighting for the desires of those rich and important men who were their masters.
This is the subject of Chaplin's speech. It is not saying that people used to be kinder, In fact he says the exact opposite . He tells them that kindness resides within all men, if they can only look within themselves for right and wrong instead of following the "machine men".
If I remember correctly it was Hegel who spoke of the evolution of work, from working for yourself to working for a land owner. But I believe that he added another dimension, speaking of men who don't create anymore but are part of a bigger, unhuman process.
However, this overlooks the state of slaves (who were men, too) during the Antiquity, and the feudal system during the Middle-Ages where most of the work is provided on the lord's land, for his own profit.
Where I do agree is that the masses that we see every day in this global village had not been seen before. Maybe we're desensitized by this, maybe we look at others like we would stare at cattle. But maybe we're actually more aware of our surroundings and we don't see foreigners with the same hostility.
On March 27 2012 20:21 Kukaracha wrote: Why so many jewish banks? Simple, because they originally weren't allowed to own land. Finance was the only business they could turn to (we're talking about the Middle-Ages here).
Christians and muslims were prohibited from loaning money with interest.
On March 27 2012 09:28 sam!zdat wrote: Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
Cheers.
Thanks for the recommendation, but I reading list is max'd out at the moment =( I'll keep the title somewhere though
Thanks!
Bro, I know the feeling.
Reading "The History of Love" by Nicole Krauss atm, going to read the 4th edition of the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. Haven't read the first 3 though >.<
Has the entire human race lost it's way? Has greed consumed our souls, poisoned our minds thoughts? What exactly is 'the way'? It seems that we, as an entire species were once 'pure' in a sense. Kindness and gentleness once flooded the world, but as time passed, as our greed - to be represented metaphorically here as a giant ball of fire in the sky - grew, our passion or lust for an abundance in everything in our lives burn more furiously in us, the flood has dried up. What now plagues us is an unbearable drought.
I haven't been around on the Earth for very long. But if today is any indication of yesteryear. Then I'm sure people are the same they have always been. There's always been greed and wars, and etc...
Contrary, standard of living is always advancing. The common joe with a cellphone has better communication today than presidents and world leaders had, not even 50 years ago. Microwaves, planes, GPS, internet... I think many people think the world is worse off today, because we are more aware of what actually is happening now than ever before.
We're not more aware of what is happening. What is happening is far too complex too understand. This is the nature of globalization.
Standard of living is advancing but we measure by the wrong standard. Global industry currently operates at about 140% the capacity of the Earth. Essentially, we are borrowing from the future... or more accurately, our parents borrowed from our future and are not going to be able to pay back the loans.
On March 29 2012 01:50 sam!zdat wrote: Global industry currently operates at about 140% the capacity of the Earth.
Where does this figure come from?
Peter Gilding, the book is The Great Disruption.
Figures and things are not in my area of expertise, so I don't remember exactly what it is based on. I think it mainly has to do with comparison of carbon emissions produced by industry versus the ability of ecosystem to draw down that carbon (the goal being a steady-state economy in which these two things are balanced - we can augment the ability to draw down carbon through technology). There may be other factors which play into this figure as well, I'm at work and can't refer to the text, sorry.
While that speech is "inspirational," it actually is sort of contradictory and shallow when you stop and think about what is going on. He tells "soldiers" to fight for democracy, not dictatorships, essentially.
That is basically like "fighting for peace." While it can sort of work in theory, it really just doesn't make a lot of sense.
As far as this whole "humanity has lost its way" idea...
[rant]
I consider myself a historian, an ancient historian to be precise (I have a masters in ancient history, whether that qualifies me or not is an individual choice I guess). People haven't "lost their way." People have always been greedy, selfish, violent, racist, xenophobic, I could go on and on. I guess if you believe in the whole "eden" story(which I don't), people lost their way. Outside of that, not even close. If anything "humanity" has gotten better. More specifically, life is better for a greater percentage of the world population than it has ever been. There might be brief moments in history where people, in terms of wealth per capita, lived better (ironicially, after major catastophies such as the Black Death or massive wars, where the survivors have more "wealth" per capita), but in generally life is better now than it has ever been for the vast majority of people in the world.
There is also this notion that the time we live in is a "special time." Newsflash, basically every generation EVER has thought this. It is how humans work. We always think we are the most important. We always think our time is exceptional. You could point to things like the "information age" and say that makes our time special, but as the speech suggests, people thought the radio and airplane were species-altering inventions when they were made (and they basically were). 100 years from now, people will be thinking thier time is particulary special or a great turning point in human history. That is just how people work.
I think there is a strong thesis to be made that the shift that is occuring in the contemporary moment is qualitatively different than the shifts that have occurred previously. The previous shifts have been accompanied by a gradual expansion of territory ruled by a single hegemony - we have reached the point at which the frontier has looped around and found itself coming the other way.
For background, I have studied a little ancient history (mostly the late Roman republic and early empire) but my field is primarily intellectual history of the 20th century.
I agree with you that the "people used to be nicer!" argument is pretty facile. The ancient world was cruel as fuck.
On March 29 2012 03:13 sam!zdat wrote: I think there is a strong thesis to be made that the shift that is occuring in the contemporary moment is qualitatively different than the shifts that have occurred previously. The previous shifts have been accompanied by a gradual expansion of territory ruled by a single hegemony - we have reached the point at which the frontier has looped around and found itself coming the other way.
I guess globalization, mass media and such are big changes, true, and we now that things are changing at a very high speed. However, maybe tomorrow will be even more different, so really, there is no way to determine if our time are particularly meaningful or not.
On March 29 2012 04:04 sam!zdat wrote: Sorry, doing what? I don't follow.
I was responding directly to your post.
You are assuming the time you live in is exceptional or a major turning point in human history.
As I mentioned earlier, almost every generation of humans seem to do this. I know you're going to argue why this time is special, in a lot of ways because you have to (if you study 20th century intellectual history, you have to think that time is especially important).
It's an argument I really don't feel like having right now. All I'll say is that I once believed the same thing, but realized a couple things:
1. It is a recurring theme in history. I try to not repeat the dumb, illogical things people do in the past, and this is one of them. Everyone thinks their time is special, and when I found myself thinking the same thing, I naturally took a step back and started to question it.
2. Even with the "technology" we have, the "information age" and age of travel, I couldn't come with solid reasons why this time was more important than any other major break-throughs in history. Of course there are sort of "lull" periods where it seems like not a lot happens for about 100 years, but you can only make those sorts of judgments looking back. People living those 100 years could probably come up with lots of reasons why (to them) their time was an especially important time in human history (if they were educated enough to compare).
Edit: I know this won't stop you from making your case, because it is the internet. But seriously, I'm not going to debate it right now, maybe in a few days when I don't have more to do, but probably not.
It's simple, there is no such thing as "contemporary history". To analyze a certain period, we need to define it, look for reasons and consequences. How can this be done of the present? Only by speculation.
Ok, fair enough. But please don't think that I am "assuming..." as I am not. I have put a great deal of thought into the question. Since you don't want to argue, I won't. But I will say that I have considered (1) and (2) and I don't think they present unsolvable difficulties.
It is bad discourse to say that someone who disagrees with you is simply "assuming" the opposite of your argument, especially if you don't feel like arguing your position. Why don't we treat one another with respect?
Kukaracha, I'm not sure why this can't be done of the present? Why can't we look for reasons and consequences in what is currently happening?
Because the consequences have not happened. Again, it is only hypothetical, and there are as many visions of the future as there are people on the earth. People in the 18th century thought they would make flying machines within a hundred morel years, people thought WWI would last a few months... I would also add that many reasons are only seen decades after everything is long done...
The consequences of our observations in astronomy have not yet happened (and will never happen that we can observe), yet we can predict them with a great degree of confidence. Astronomy is a very interesting problem because we are only able to observe one instant in time of a system whose dynamics span eons. The study of evolutionary systems encounters a similar obstacle. Neither of these problems are intractible (is it spelled intractable? idk sorry should look that up; important word.) What is different about the study of history (there are unquestionably things that are different, but what are they?)
You give two examples of things people got wrong. Was there never anything that people got right? Was there never anything that people got wrong for specific reasons which we can understand? (edit: we should ask ourselves: what kind of things do people get wrong? what kinds of things might they be able to get right? I.e. what questions should we be asking?)
In reading Walter Benjamin, to give just one example, I found a remarkable prescience in his observations about early 20th century and 19th century culture which give insight into our own contemporary moment. Cannot we do the same? "Every epoch dreams the one to follow."
A good theory of history would incorporate and explain all of the many visions of the future. I think you will find as you examine these various visions that there are not so many as you might think. Through careful study we can begin to categorize and understand them in their relationships to one another, and then to situate our own understanding within this framework in order to gain further understanding. This is the progression of the dialectic.
Comprehension is the precondition of praxis. We cannot serve our own interests if we do not study such matters. If we give up on the whole issue as intractible we abdicate all our power to change our world for the better. I think that such negative epistemological claims are furthermore incoherent, although that is perhaps a longer discussion. they are, to be certain, currently in vogue.
You speak of scientific examples - astronomy, which draws laws from past events and applies them to the future - while we're discussing human history. The difference is that history is not a science.
Taking the example of Benjamin, he did foresee some aspects of our culture we inherited from the industrial revolution, the new forms of urbanization and the importance of images through cinematography and photography. However, I have never seen him speak of the current forms of globalization or about cybercultures, virtual realms, video games, even though they were born just thirty years after his death. Those elements are now a great part of our culture and are still growing exponentially. Also, when he wrote about the 19th century, he was talking about the past... And history does incorporate past visions of the future, simply because they belong to the past.
Unless you provide me with this small amount of imaginable outcomes, I will still believe that there are many, many of them. Simply because "the future" encompasses everything we know.
My main point is that history is the analysis of a certain contextualized era, which cannot be applied to the present, since half of the context (the future) is missing. If you're simply predicting different outcomes, then those are simply an hypothesis, which are almost always at least partially false, as history has shown us, from WW2 soldiers using Gamelin holes to defend themselves from stuckas to the real-estate crisis of Spain. Of course, from time to time, someone get some predictions right. However, if we remember him, it's because of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. It's impressive.
On March 29 2012 08:37 Kukaracha wrote: You speak of scientific examples - astronomy, which draws laws from past events and applies them to the future - while we're discussing human history. The difference is that history is not a science.
Ok, but the response is question begging. What is it exactly about history that makes it different from science? What is science, so that I know what history isn't?
My point in the analogy of astronomy has to do with trajectory. Why can we not, through careful study of the past, observe a trajectory in history and thereby make substantial qualitative predictions about the future? These predictions will have to take the form of contingency trees but that is still a prediction. Astronomy is a much easier science than is history.
I think that history IS a science; it's just a special kind of very messy science. But here perhaps we are equivocating over terms.
Taking the example of Benjamin, he did foresee some aspects of our culture we inherited from the industrial revolution, the new forms of urbanization and the importance of images through cinematography and photography. However, I have never seen him speak of the current forms of globalization or about cybercultures, virtual realms, video games, even though they were born just thirty years after his death. Those elements are now a great part of our culture and are still growing exponentially. Also, when he wrote about the 19th century, he was talking about the past... And history does incorporate past visions of the future, simply because they belong to the past.
I think that there is much in Benjamin that provides illumination on cyberculture etc., if you know how to read for it.
In any event:
"A way can be a guide, but not a fixed path; names can be given, but not permanent labels."
What we are looking for is not a particular history but a strategy (dao) of looking at history. We are looking not for a vision, but for a way of seeing. Strategy is a method for dealing objectively with computational intractability; the study of history is fundamentally strategic.
Unless you provide me with this small amount of imaginable outcomes, I will still believe that there are many, many of them. Simply because "the future" encompasses everything we know.
There are any infinite (or at least very large) number of possible outcomes, but they arrange themselves in certain patterns. These patterns are attractors.
At any rate, I misunderstood you. I thought we were talking about weltanschauungen. There are not an infinite number of world-views.
My main point is that history is the analysis of a certain contextualized era, which cannot be applied to the present, since half of the context (the future) is missing.
Why do you exclusively privilege diachrony over synchrony?
If you're simply predicting different outcomes, then those are simply an hypothesis, which are almost always at least partially false
So what, then, was partially true? The dialectic is fundamentally concerned with the interrelationships of partial truths.
, as history has shown us,
How does this fit into your theory? How does history show us? What kinds of things does it show us?
from WW2 soldiers using Gamelin holes to defend themselves from stuckas to the real-estate crisis of Spain. Of course, from time to time, someone get some predictions right. However, if we remember him, it's because of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. It's impressive.
You are correct that there cannot be a complete diachronic analysis of the present. However, as above, we can attempt to discern a trajectory by means of dialectical seeing.
It is impossible to predict events, but history is more than a succession of events. What remains true independent of contingency? Is that even possible? What is the structure and ontology of contingency?
Through what means do you believe that we should make decisions on how to act re the future? Or is all action impossible? That is certainly a position that people have taken.
(thanks, btw, for participating in this conversation with me. I'm glad somebody feels like arguing )
I'll start with this statement : history is not a science, history is a humanity. While some will argue that it is a science, I believe that it broadens the definition by a great deal. Most of historic studies don't follow any part of what we call the scientific method. Michelet didn't write his History of France that long ago, and even if we avoid such extremes, how objective can we be when we create a subjective explanatory system based on subjective testimonies? Open a study on Robert II of France, look at the sources, and you'll find that we mostly gather our information on dithyrambic records written by a handful of monks.
Even though you say that you can find "illuminations" in Benjamin's works when you know how to "read" for it, until I've seen said excerpts I will believe that this is the same as to "find" hints about your own future in Nostradamus' writings when you are looking for them. Same with supposed patterns you speak of, I ask to see.
Now, why do I privilege diachrony over synchrony (just a note, in French, those terms are only used in linguistic studies)? Simply because synchrony lacks context which is the essence of history. You speak of strategy (contrary to a scientific hypothetical approach I believe), a part of the historical analysis of our past indeed, especially among Michelet's followers, which can only be reached with context, to avoid giving a particular meaning to contigent points. And, as I said, the study of past civlizations and past writers has shown us that they often make such claims about their own times being a turning point, and that they are often wrong in their predictions. To take the example of l'an Mil again, how were they supposed to foresee that the new class division in oratores, bellatores and laboratores would last until 1789? Did they measure the importance of the "God's peace" treaties? No, they didn't. And what allows us to understand why it lasted and why they did not realize the extent of their actions is the study of both their past, their present, and their future.
Finally, as you said it yourself, contigency is an obstacle to our understanding. And yet we keep on trying to tell our future, but we mostly fail. Very few people actually work on long-term projects, even Kissinger's "illuminated" realpolitik failed to last more than half a century I believe that we can "predict" the next hour with some sort of success, but a decent number of mistakes arise when we try to guess our day. We are unable to see more than our routine when speaking of weeks or months, and there we start to become clueless. In reality, our "comprehensive predictions" simply rely on the hypothesis that tomorrow will be the same day as today. This is the same at a macroscopic level : we rely on the next hudred years seeing no major change, keeping a capitalistic, consumerist and liberal model. We are not looking for patterns, we are simply extending the present and calling it "the future".
On March 29 2012 22:13 Kukaracha wrote: I'll start with this statement : history is not a science, history is a humanity. While some will argue that it is a science, I believe that it broadens the definition by a great deal. Most of historic studies don't follow any part of what we call the scientific method.
Yes, in the way you mean it's certainly not a science. What I was saying about "science" is more of a metaphysical claim and is tangential to the present discussion. My feeling is that all fields of human inquiry have the same fundamental object (the dao), are therefore but different ways of looking at the same thing, and therefore different kinds of "science." Of course, those fields of inquiry whose objects (unfoldings of the dao) are of a certain complex type do not avail themselves to the "scientific method" (due to computational intractability or "messiness") and are therefore not science in the traditional or Popperian sense. Some of these things we can study with the aid of simulation (weather, evolution), some are so complex that they can only be accessed through the mediation of language (history is one of these). As I say, this is a digression.
Even though you say that you can find "illuminations" in Benjamin's works when you know how to "read" for it, until I've seen said excerpts I will believe that this is the same as to "find" hints about your own future in Nostradamus' writings when you are looking for them. Same with supposed patterns you speak of, I ask to see.
I don't think this is the same at all. It's not about making predictions, it's about having insight into the spirit of the age. I'm not going to be able to convince you of this in this forum if you haven't had a similar experience, so ok. It's not really in the spirit of Benjamin to quote him and then go "SEE!! LOOK!!" Benjamin only reveals himself when you've lived with him for a while.
Do you not find that there is any structure in the progression of history? What is the nature of this structure as you see it?
Now, why do I privilege diachrony over synchrony (just a note, in French, those terms are only used in linguistic studies)?
No reason not to apply them in cultural studies as well. We often do. Really you can apply them to the study of any system which has extension over time. (note that the distinction between the two is more heuristic than ontological; it may be that they are inextricable).
Simply because synchrony lacks context which is the essence of history. You speak of strategy (contrary to a scientific hypothetical approach I believe), a part of the historical analysis of our past indeed, especially among Michelet's followers, which can only be reached with context, to avoid giving a particular meaning to contigent points.
Synchronically, you can analyze the cultural logic of a given epoch without having to trace the origins of that logic through the past (although this is also a useful exercise). The essence of strategy is to learn to imply context which is missing. This is a deeply problematic but not totally aporetic endeavor. (perhaps this last is the point of disagreement).
Not familiar with Michelet. You are a Micheletian? What would be a foundational text that you would recommend?
It seems worth noting there that structure arises out of aggregate contingency. This is "strategic" (but more in Foucault's sense than in the way I use the term). It would therefore be a mistake to assign structure to any single contingent point (context IS important) but it equally a mistake to ignore the structure that arises from all of this contingency. That emergent structure is the object of the philosophy of history.
And, as I said, the study of past civlizations and past writers has shown us that they often make such claims about their own times being a turning point, and that they are often wrong in their predictions.
Doesn't prove anything. Sometimes there really are wolves. You should be able to see how this argument is simply fallacious. All this presents to us is an imperative to consider our claims very carefully.
And what allows us to understand why it lasted and why they did not realize the extent of their actions is the study of both their past, their present, and their future.
Yes, but can the insight we arrive at through this study not present us with strategic understanding that aids us in our present endeavors? I ask you again: on what basis should we make decisions about how to act re the future?
This is the point of the scientific method. By observing a number of examples of past (circumstance), present (stimulus), and future (result), one can attempt to understand (through a process of theorization and falsification) the way that the future is produced by the stimulus of the present in the context of the past. This allows you to plan ahead.
Finally, as you said it yourself, contigency is an obstacle to our understanding. And yet we keep on trying to tell our future, but we mostly fail. Very few people actually work on long-term projects, even Kissinger's "illuminated" realpolitik failed to last more than half a century I believe that we can "predict" the next hour with some sort of success, but a decent number of mistakes arise when we try to guess our day. We are unable to see more than our routine when speaking of weeks or months, and there we start to become clueless.
You are still in the mindset of predicting events. This is of course impossible. (and is the fallacy of Asimovian "psychohistory")
The constitutive inability of postmodernism to engage itself with long-term projects is probably my primary polemical target. some good work on the topic: Jameson Archaeologies of the Future, Harvey Spaces of Hope.
In reality, our "comprehensive predictions" simply rely on the hypothesis that tomorrow will be the same day as today. This is the same at a macroscopic level : we rely on the next hudred years seeing no major change, keeping a capitalistic, consumerist and liberal model. We are not looking for patterns, we are simply extending the present and calling it "the future".
I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing against here. I could not agree more with this point. My predictions about the future involve the collapse of global finance capital and neoliberal hegemony within the next 20-50 years (either that or a police state - this is the kind of contingency tree I'm speaking of).
The "comprehensive predictions" of which you speak are precisely the kinds of predictions which can't be made. We agree about this. It's the "major changes" into which we can gain some (necessarily fuzzy) insight. This the same as the way that you cannot predict the weather on some given day in any meaningful way, but I can make substantial predictions about climate - e.g. I know that if I go to Seattle it's probably gonna fucking rain. But sometimes I get pleasantly surprised. None of this is inconsistent with what I'm saying.
This objection certainly applies to most mainstream economists, who assume many of these things you mention as well as the capacity of the earth for infinite compound growth (among numerous other problems with mainstream economics, such as the assumption that growth=good).
We seem to agree, but to be sure, I'll clarify my point : we can't tell the future. However, we can use science to create an hypothesis based on measurable values. Outside of this scope, our predictions become more and more erratic and vague as we reach further away from present times, because the only real claims we can make are simply the continuation of our present context : to say that in twenty years, capitalism will still be the ruling economical model seems safe. To claim it will go on for fifty years becomes more of a bet, and thinking it will last another century is more of a hope. This means that we can argue about the future, but we can't make such statements as "we certainly are at a turning point in history".
About Michelet, you could read any of his works to understand his position. He considers history as a "resurrection", giving a very personal and vivid vision (as a republican) of France's past, glorifying the revolution and raising a few national heroes in a lyrical manner (Joan of Arc or François the Ist). I used this example to illustrate the strong subjectivity that constitutes the base of most - if not all - historical studies.
The constitutive inability of postmodernism to engage itself with long-term projects is probably my primary polemical target. some good work on the topic: Jameson Archaeologies of the Future, Harvey Spaces of Hope.
History isn't science, not even close. I thought you might have some formal training on the subject when you mentioned you had read some Benjamin, but then you said history could be a science, and destroyed any credibility you might have, as far as I'm concerned.
There's really no need to take that tone. Why do you feel the need to be so belligerent?
You may not have seen my later elaboration on this point:
On March 30 2012 01:48 sam!zdat wrote: Yes, in the way you mean it's certainly not a science. What I was saying about "science" is more of a metaphysical claim and is tangential to the present discussion. My feeling is that all fields of human inquiry have the same fundamental object (the dao), are therefore but different ways of looking at the same thing, and therefore different kinds of "science." Of course, those fields of inquiry whose objects (unfoldings of the dao) are of a certain complex type do not avail themselves to the "scientific method" (due to computational intractability or "messiness") and are therefore not science in the traditional or Popperian sense. Some of these things we can study with the aid of simulation (weather, evolution), some are so complex that they can only be accessed through the mediation of language (history is one of these). As I say, this is a digression.
I am, of course, in awe of your formal training. If only I could have been so lucky as to receive such a thing.
edit: Azera, for comparison, what Hardly Never is doing is "arguing."
I'm not arguing, or trying to be belligerent. You put forth an idea (history can be used as a form of "science" to predict the future) that has no basis in reality or academic practice. If I misunderstood your idea, then I'm sorry, but that seems to be what you are arguing.
No basis in academic practice? Isn't that the aim of critical theory?
The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable. Postmodernism (and poststructuralism) does argue this (this, Kukaracha, is the reason it cannot engage in long-term planning) but there are other views. I would recommend Fredric Jameson for another way of looking at things. A good place to start might be "Postmodernism: Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism"
Benjamin would CERTAINLY not endorse the total-aporia view of the future. The whole point of the Arcades Project was to read his contemporary moment as immanent in the 19th century. Once this task had been accomplished, the critic would be able to apply this same strategy of dialectical seeing to awaken from the dream of his own present.
edit: I should add that my particular area of interest is science fiction. The point of science fiction is to try to see into the future. The theorists and critics working in this field are well aware of the great difficulties (including the ones that have been raised in this thread) involved in this project.
I'm still not 100% clear on what you are saying. It still seems like you believe you can use the past to predict the future (but again, you are sort of skirting the subject, so I'm not 100% that is what you are saying).
Let me give you my point of view on what you (seem) to be arguing. As a historian in training, you read Benjamin (it sounds like you read his Illuminations) not to emulate his way of deconstructing society. Nor do you read Faucault to emulate his. You read them to understand some of the previous methods of historical practice, so you can better understand them when you see them in literature, and build upon them in your own work. If a modern historian adopted Benjamin's (and even Faucault's, at this point) methodology wholesale at this point, no one would take him/her seriously. That would be the academic equivalent of using a scientific text from the early 20th century as a modern and current form of scholarship. It doesn't work. Can you cite Benjamin? Of course. Can you use some of his ideas in your methodology? Possibly, depending what you are working on. However, no one would seriously pretend that form of thought is current.
In closing, I'll quote one of my professors from my undergrad years, when this topic came up in class (this was a history of mexico class, but that isn't that relevant). I'm paraphrasing a bit, but you'll get the idea. The question was about using what we were learning to predict the future of mexican government (this was back in like 2004):
"I don't buy this idea of learning history or you're 'doomed to repeat it.' I don't think the time we live in is close enough to any other time in history to be able to make accurate predictions about the future. It doesn't work. Why do I study history? Well you can sit around and pick your nose for the rest of your life, or you can study something you enjoy."
Again, that is paraphrasing a bit, but the message is the same. I've heard similar sentiments from a lot of professional historians, but that one stuck with me as rather succinct, for whatever reason.
So the point of that quotation is that the study of history is only a diversion from nose-picking? How depressing. Why do you do it?
I don't buy it.
The academy gets told enough from outside that what it does is without practical utility - very depressing to hear that coming from within as well.
I am not a historian. My field is literature. (it is perhaps a very unfortunate thing about the current state of the academy that we introduce such artificial divisions into the humanities and that the various departments do not talk to each other very much - academics in my own field often display a shocking ignorance of contemporary thought in philosophy, for example). So keep in mind that I don't know much about current methodologies in contemporary history departments. I do think if historians consider the Benjamins and Foucaults to be only exempla of outdated methodologies then that is a very sad and misguided thing indeed. Perhaps they are not doing "history" in the way that historians think of it (in the same way that Freud didn't do psychology in the way that psychologists see it) but that doesn't mean that their project is illegitimate (and we still have a great deal to learn from Freud as well).
I do not think the critical method is dead. The rise of poststructuralism as the (ironically) hegemonic theoretical discourse in the west has pushed it to the margins, but there is still good work being done in this field and I think that there will soon be a renewed interest in this tradition, as we need it very much in our contemporary moment. It's true that this form of thought is not current but I'm not so sure that that is a good thing. It ain't easy bein' heterodox.
"doomed to repeat it" is obviously stupid and a very vulgar form of the thesis that I am supporting here.
I have read some of the Illuminations but the text I am mostly familiar with is the Arcades Project (das Passagenwerk - love the german title). I have the four volume selected works on my shelf and I hope to work my way through it soon. The discovery of Benjamin was one of three watershed moments in my own intellectual development (the other two being classes I took on the philosophy of biology and classical chinese philosophical traditions), so I look forward to becoming more comprehensively familiar with his work.
I'm sorry if I seem to be skirting the subject but I am trying to make myself clear as well as I can. The thesis that I am trying to argue is a bit subtle and, as I have experienced to my chagrin, prone to misunderstanding. It also challenges certain theoretical positions which are widely held in the academic community. The reason that I enjoy discussions such as this is so that I can discover where I am most easily misunderstood so that I can seek to find better ways to communicate (and also to rectify mistakes in my own thought). Thanks for bearing with me, and I'm glad that you have posted a real reply as it is always nice to have more than two voices in a discourse.
I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on contemporary historical method and what current thought in this field finds lacking in these previous methods of inquiry.
On April 01 2012 05:23 sam!zdat wrote: So the point of that quotation is that the study of history is only a diversion from nose-picking? How depressing. Why do you do it?
I don't buy it.
The academy gets told enough from outside that what it does is without practical utility - very depressing to hear that coming from within as well.
I am not a historian. My field is literature. (it is perhaps a very unfortunate thing about the current state of the academy that we introduce such artificial divisions into the humanities and that the various departments do not talk to each other very much - academics in my own field often display a shocking ignorance of contemporary thought in philosophy, for example). So keep in mind that I don't know much about current methodologies in contemporary history departments. I do think if historians consider the Benjamins and Foucaults to be only exempla of outdated methodologies then that is a very sad and misguided thing indeed. Perhaps they are not doing "history" in the way that historians think of it (in the same way that Freud didn't do psychology in the way that psychologists see it) but that doesn't mean that their project is illegitimate (and we still have a great deal to learn from Freud as well).
I do not think the critical method is dead. The rise of poststructuralism as the (ironically) hegemonic theoretical discourse in the west has pushed it to the margins, but there is still good work being done in this field and I think that there will soon be a renewed interest in this tradition, as we need it very much in our contemporary moment. It's true that this form of thought is not current but I'm not so sure that that is a good thing. It ain't easy bein' heterodox.
"doomed to repeat it" is obviously stupid and a very vulgar form of the thesis that I am supporting here.
I have read some of the Illuminations but the text I am mostly familiar with is the Arcades Project (das Passagenwerk - love the german title). I have the four volume selected works on my shelf and I hope to work my way through it soon. The discovery of Benjamin was one of three watershed moments in my own intellectual development (the other two being classes I took on the philosophy of biology and classical chinese philosophical traditions), so I look forward to becoming more comprehensively familiar with his work.
I'm sorry if I seem to be skirting the subject but I am trying to make myself clear as well as I can. The thesis that I am trying to argue is a bit subtle and, as I have experienced to my chagrin, prone to misunderstanding. It also challenges certain theoretical positions which are widely held in the academic community. The reason that I enjoy discussions such as this is so that I can discover where I am most easily misunderstood so that I can seek to find better ways to communicate (and also to rectify mistakes in my own thought). Thanks for bearing with me, and I'm glad that you have posted a real reply as it is always nice to have more than two voices in a discourse.
I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on contemporary historical method and what current thought in this field finds lacking in these previous methods of inquiry.
In terms of why I study history, or what benefit it provides to society, I'll direct you to my blog post regarding the subject. The short answer is, I'd compare the "practical" uses of history as similar to the "practical" uses of astronomy. Not because history is like a science, but by understanding it, we better understand the world (or universe) we live in, but the vast majority of people don't give rat's ass about what is discovered anyhow, unless they want to use that information to push some political agenda. While you could argue that astronomy has very long term practical applications, say if we have to go live on Mars or something, most of what it does now is to study astronomy for the sake of astronomy. For instance, I just watched a TED talk on a probe that finally reached a moon of Saturn. Why are they studying the moon? Well, basically just to study it. We can't live there. While there might be life there some kind (probably not) it sure wouldn't be something we could interact with. They just want to learn more about the way the universe works, and that is fine. I love astronomy, and wish it got more attention in today's society.
History is very similar. If you want to get all sci-fi (and I know you do) about it, I guess you could argue that if we ever invent time travelling, we'd like to know what to expect when we get there. But that is far fetched. I study ancient Romans because I like ancient Romans. Period. While we do discovery new "facts" every now and again, it has little to no relevance to modern life except in the most academic of senses. No one studies history to predict the future. And if they did, as my blog post suggests, no one would listen.
As far is current academic trends in history, by far the prevailing (but not only) one is cultural history. What is cultural history? Short answer, fuck if I know. I read this book cover to cover and I still couldn't tell you exactly what cultural history is. I could tell you components, I could tell you what it isn't if I saw it, but just the like world culture, it is hard to nail down. I think that is why it is popular now, because you can do a cultural history of just about anything, and you can shoehorn what you are doing into "cultural history" without too much of a problem.
As far as past trends, there are a bunch. The generation before mine is still sort of stuck on Foucault, which is largely a precursor to cultural history(with a strong emphasis on power relationships within culture). However, even most of them are starting to agree that it shouldn't be the dominant paradigm. In the 1970s, economic history was really popular. This created a lot of seminal works that are boring as shit to read, in general. They basically (and this is an overstatement) take a lot of the "human" elements out of history, and focus on things like food and other natural resources, and how these shape human behavior. This, of course, leads to using economic methods for understanding history. In a way it is almost anti-cultural history, but that is a bit harsh. Before that, military history was popular. This was an idea that the most important things in history were wars, results of wars, and people's ability to coerce others through force. You go further back and you start seeing people using Marxist methods.
All of these things are still floating around, to some degree or another. Hell, rumor was that a professor at my dept. was still a Marxist (no clue if its true). As you hinted at, these trends to be cyclical, just like anything else. Fortunately, "cultural" history can usually find a place for them, one way or another. If I had to label myself (and I'd rather not), I'd label myself a "cultural" historian, that tends to drift towards political history.
Interesting, thanks. I remember your blog and enjoyed it. In it you say that people don't learn from history. Do you think that this is a necessary or contingent truth? In other words, can we as a culture make a concerted effort (given whatever preconditions or resources or paradigm shifts or w/e) to change this and start to learn from history? I think that would be nice, and a project toward which we should work.
I am a Marxist, by the way - although it might be more precise (and more euphemistic) to say that I am a Jamesonian. In the second to last paragraph, you speak of the various schools of historical inquiry as reducing history so some particular class of phenomena (wars, culture, economics, etc). The contemporary trend in Marxism is to attempt to synthesize these various reductionisms and provide a comprehensive and non-reductionistic picture of the way that all of these things mutually influence each other to create history (I would recommend David Harvey's recent book The Enigma of Capital for an argument like this). It's important to note that many people incorrectly see historical materialism as a reductionistic paradigm - this is not the case and results from a very common misreading of Marx even among his followers (which is partly his fault as "reductionism" was not a thing to be avoided when he was writing).
I loaned my copy of Enigma of Capital to a friend but I'll quote from a review which quotes him on the thesis mentioned above:
After examining the potential barriers to capital flow, Harvey offers a list of seven “activity spheres” that affect the evolution of capitalism. These spheres are: “technologies and organizational forms; social relations; institutional and administrative arrangements; production and labour processes; relations to nature; the reproduction of daily life and of the species; and ‘mental conceptions of the world.’” As with his previous list, he argues, “No one of the spheres dominates even as none of them are independent of the others.” He adds, “The danger for social theory as well as for popular understanding is to see one of the spheres as determinant.” The spheres are “inextricably interwoven with each other,” and the dialectical interaction of all [of] them explains the evolution of capitalism.
There is still work to be done on the nature of the relationships between these spheres, as it is a very tricky problem. I'll note that most flavors of postmodernism are a reduction to the "mental conceptions of the world" sphere. This is the reason for what you observe with the trend toward "cultural history" because, for a postmodernist, there is nothing BUT culture. This is what is meant by a phrase you may have run across: "the linguistic turn." Foucault is part of this tradition but he is by far the most reasonable of the bunch, and my understanding is that he later rejects much of this - I have only read some small selections from him to date and am certainly no Foucault scholar although I have admired aspects of his work.
I laughed to consider the idea of time travel being the practical application of historical inquiry. God I hate time travel stories.
I will say that in my own studies of Roman culture (mostly literature, not history - I know Latin and have read Vergil, Catullus, Horace, Ovid, Martial, and Apuleius) I have found some remarkable and enlightening parallels (NOT identities) between that culture and our own. In other ways it is totally alien, which is also illuminating.
I guess my question would be: what kinds of things about "how the universe works" does one learn from the study of history?
From a Daoist perspective, "how the universe works" is just the dao. Therefore one would study astronomy (or anything else) not "for the sake of astronomy" but for the sake of bringing human-mind (asymptotically) closer to dao-mind. Since the dao is everything, and is the source of everything, anything at all that you could learn would be an important part of this process. This is why it is not a waste of time, but indeed the highest human activity, to do things like astronomy or theoretical physics or philosophy.
You seem like a nice guy, and I think maybe we got off on the wrong foot. If you thought I was being belligerent, I apologize, as that was not my intent. What I'm going to say next might sound condescending, but I don't mean it in that way. The way you are thinking sounds a lot like the way I was thinking 4-5 years ago. Basically toward the end of my undergrad career, and just after(although I was never a Marxist). Let me elaborate on what I mean. (This will be a long post)
The two things I have (or had, to be more precise) in common with you was that I had been rather deep in Daoist thought, and thought that there were so many parallels between ancient Roman culture and our own, that I could relate the two, and thus predict how things would go in the US, and in the most extreme sense, "warn" of impending disaster.
Let me start with the Daoism thing. The two major things that attracted me to Daosim was the concept of the Dao, and the emphasis on polar opposite forces (one not being "better" or more desirable than the other), largely because it was observable in nature. Those two things I'd say are still somewhat important to my life, particularly the latter, because I think there is scientific evidence to support that (protons/electrons, positive/negative charges (damn English giving those concepts connotations , but I digress)). The whole "Dao" path thing... not so much. The problem with Daoism, is that like any other religion, it is filled with a bunch of magical bullshit. Things like living an eternal life here on Earth (not metaphorical). Things like licking a girl's pussy will make you live longer. Things like the secret to keeping your "life force" is not ejaculating (I'm not making this up). It's just magic bullshit, like every other religion. So, like any other religion, when you question parts of it, you inevitably must question all of it, including the concept of the "Dao." I still like reading things like The Water Course Way when I'm feeling philosophical, but by and large I think it is just a bunch of crap.
On to the Roman thing.
Leaving undergrad I thought I had figured it out. I saw the patterns. While others in the past had tried to connect Roman history and US history (how could you not, when our government is deliberately based on the Roman republic), I was going to get it right. It was all right there. The government corruption. The inefficiency of the system. The division between the old generation and the new generation (see Cicero vs. Catullus and friends). The use of fear of outside threats to coerce people to get more power (Cataline conspiracy, Caesar as dictator). I was going to get it right.
Bullshit.
It just doesn't work, and more importantly no one fucking cares. Seriously, they fucking don't. Not only does the general population not care (nor will they ever), even fellow ancient historians really don't care. Sure, it is something to talk about casually when you're shooting the shit between other historians, but no one would actually put the time and effort to doing it in an academic way. You would get shot to shit by critics. The time period is too broad. There are too many holes. There are too many non-parallels. The span of time is just too long. I would only ever attempt such a thing long after I was a tenured professor somewhere that had already made my career doing much safer historical work.
I want to briefly discuss what it is like to "do" history in an academic and professional way. When we draw parallels to the modern world, or even other time periods, it is only in passing for greater understanding. It is generally to relate an understandable concept (something in the modern world) to something that is less understandable (something in the past). We aren't trying to draw conclusions about the now or the future by studying the past. That just isn't what happens in the classroom, or when doing academic work. We just don't do it. We are too busy talking about the time we are studying for its own merits. We are too busy trying understand the past in its own right. My adviser has a saying that he uses a lot. "Take things on their own terms." That means sort of a lot of things. It means don't look ahead. Don't take what you know what will happen in the future to people in the past, and think that they would know. That seems like an obvious concept, but it is hard to do. Don't inject modern thinking into ancient minds. You can apply modern academic thought to past cultural/political systems, but don't think that the people you are studying understood it this way.
On to the reductionist thing.
Historians in almost all fields have to work in reductionist ways, to some degree, out of necessity. One advantage of working in the ancient world is that it is a bit like pokemon: you can collect 'em all. What I mean is you can collect and engage most if not all the evidence about what you are working on. There is a concept of scarcity vs. abundance, with regards to historical evidence. Ancient historians generally work in an area of scarcity. There is just a limited amount of evidence for us to work with. This just stops being true the closer to modernity you get. I sort of feel sorry for people that work beyond, say, the 17th century. There is just too much evidence. You can't consider it all. You just can't. So you have to go reductionist, to a degree. You have to decide on certain factors (whether they be political, economic, military, etc.) and work with those. You have to focus your argument into something that is manageable, and in doing so you inevitably end up focusing on certain aspects, to the detriment of all the rest. Is it right? In a perfect world, no. However, it is what most historians have to do. That is why you get these reductions to specific aspects.
On April 01 2012 07:46 HardlyNever wrote: You seem like a nice guy, and I think maybe we got off on the wrong foot. If you thought I was being belligerent, I apologize, as that was not my intent. What I'm going to say next might sound condescending, but I don't mean it in that way. The way you are thinking sounds a lot like the way I was thinking 4-5 years ago. Basically toward the end of my undergrad career, and just after(although I was never a Marxist). Let me elaborate on what I mean. (This will be a long post)
ok let's be friends
The problem with Daoism, is that like any other religion, it is filled with a bunch of magical bullshit. Things like living an eternal life here on Earth (not metaphorical). Things like licking a girl's pussy will make you live longer. Things like the secret to keeping your "life force" is not ejaculating (I'm not making this up). It's just magic bullshit, like every other religion. So, like any other religion, when you question parts of it, you inevitably must question all of it, including the concept of the "Dao." I still like reading things like The Water Course Way when I'm feeling philosophical, but by and large I think it is just a bunch of crap.
Don't really know or care anything about this stuff, which just sounds like superstitious accretion onto legitimate philosophical tradition (c.f. Christianity - which is imo a less interesting philosophical tradition but nevertheless legitimate, although that basically died with Augustine); I'm mostly only interested in the daodejing, the zhuangzi, and the yijing, along with the analects of Confucius. None of those texts involve any of that nonsense. "Confucius did not talk about strange things, powers, chaos, or the spiritual." Everything I say about Daoism is just my own thought from taking an academic class on the topic and then spending five years letting it sink in and recently re-reading them. I have never talked to anything like a Daoist "priest" and don't know if they believe anything like that, nor do I care if they do.
In addition to being a daoist, I am an atheist, a philosophical realist, and a firm believer in the scientific method. I must however admit that I do enjoy cunnilingus and any superstition which promotes that activity seems ok in my book (and socially adaptive to boot!)
It is interesting to note re the present discussion that in the Daoist commentary of the yijing it is considered a insult to the oracle (and to be entirely missing the point) to attempt to use it to predict the future.
but no one would actually put the time and effort to doing it in an academic way. You would get shot to shit by critics. The time period is too broad. There are too many holes. There are too many non-parallels. The span of time is just too long. I would only ever attempt such a thing long after I was a tenured professor somewhere that had already made my career doing much safer historical work.
Never claimed it would fruitful or interesting to try to map the correspondance between the two as a self-contained academic thesis. Two data points do not an interesting curve imply. But what you say above this quote are fruitful observations to make. The trick is to extract the structure from the context.
I want to briefly discuss what it is like to "do" history in an academic and professional way. When we draw parallels to the modern world, or even other time periods, it is only in passing for greater understanding. It is generally to relate an understandable concept (something in the modern world) to something that is less understandable (something in the past). We aren't trying to draw conclusions about the now or the future by studying the past. That just isn't what happens in the classroom, or when doing academic work. We just don't do it. We are too busy talking about the time we are studying for its own merits.
I am happy for historians to do this work so that I can draw on their conclusions to do the things that they are too busy to do (or which fall outside the scope of their discipline). Just because you aren't trying to do it doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to do. Remember I'm not a historian, but I do draw on the work of historians and would not be able to do my work without it.
Don't inject modern thinking into ancient minds. You can apply modern academic thought to past cultural/political systems, but don't think that the people you are studying understood it this way.
Yes, this is critical. We have no disagreement here.
On to the reductionist thing.
Historians in almost all fields have to work in reductionist ways, to some degree, out of necessity. One advantage of working in the ancient world is that it is a bit like pokemon: you can collect 'em all. What I mean is you can collect and engage most if not all the evidence about what you are working on. There is a concept of scarcity vs. abundance, with regards to historical evidence. Ancient historians generally work in an area of scarcity. There is just a limited amount of evidence for us to work with. This just stops being true the closer to modernity you get. I sort of feel sorry for people that work beyond, say, the 17th century. There is just too much evidence. You can't consider it all. You just can't. So you have to go reductionist, to a degree. You have to decide on certain factors (whether they be political, economic, military, etc.) and work with those. You have to focus your argument into something that is manageable, and in doing so you inevitably end up focusing on certain aspects, to the detriment of all the rest. Is it right? In a perfect world, no. However, it is what most historians have to do. That is why you get these reductions to specific aspects.
Yes, you are completely right. Analysis is the precondition of synthesis. You cannot be non-reductionistic until you have been reductionistic first. It is a bit like picking a variable to hold constant in an experiment, because you cannot start by considering the entire parameter space at once. Once you have done all of this work, however, you want to move beyond that and develop a more comprehensive theory.
As far as the overabundance of information: I study postmodernity. This problem is basically the ESSENCE of postmodernity. In Jamesonian terms, the goal is to develop a "cognitive map" that allows one to navigate the complexly interconnected world space of late capitalism without a) having to know every detail and b) going crazy.
Which brings us back to strategy.
It is fruitful to consider the difference between a reduction and a heuristic.
edit:
On April 01 2012 07:46 HardlyNever wrote: no one fucking cares.
It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on.
On April 01 2012 01:21 sam!zdat wrote: Nincompoopery? We're having a pretty interesting discussion I think. This is what your english class should be like.
You seem to be worried about people "arguing" in your blogs, but there's a big difference between "arguing" and "argumentation."
Kukaracha, I'll post a couple of closing responses to that last post soon.
Yeah I have problems with people arguing in my blogs. I must be doing something wrong with them. But if you think it's a legit discussion, please go ahead.
On March 26 2012 17:46 Azera wrote: Has the entire human race lost it's way? Has greed consumed our souls, poisoned our minds thoughts? What exactly is 'the way'? It seems that we, as an entire species were once 'pure' in a sense. Kindness and gentleness once flooded the world...
I have to disagree with this portion of the OP. I don't think we were ever pure, or that there was a time when we flooded the world with "kindness and gentleness" as you suggest. I suspect that throughout our entire history, even predating modern man (in a physical sense), we have committed cruel and violent acts against each other and our surroundings. I don't think we gradually became corrupted by greed or violence. Rather, I think these have always been aspects of our nature and unfortunately our scientific prowess grew faster than our empathy and compassion. Regardless, all things considered I think we're doing better now than we ever did in the past. We are by our very nature impure as our lives depend upon the death of other forms of life. That's the way I see it at least and I hope it makes at least a little bit of sense.
On April 01 2012 09:17 HardlyNever wrote: It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on.
Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time.
On the other hand, humanity has got to learn some lessons from history so that certain mistakes can be avoided in the future. I mean, the obvious example is the Nazis and the rise to power of the petite general. The appeasement of a dictator in Germany by countries in Europe for so long was a huge mistake, as well as the USA completely ignoring the genocide that was known to be occurring until they were forcefully brought into the war by the Japanese attack. These things must be a lesson for future generations, because it is a fact that history repeats itself unless steps are taken to ensure it doesn't.
There are innumerable other example one could make, but I think you get the point. You can't predict the future by studying history, but there must be more to it that simply studying History for its own sake.
I'm not sure why you're drawing those conclusions.... ?
I have made several recommendations of books where people communicate their ideas about precisely this kind of thing to each other. I could make many more. It's a field called "Literary Theory." You can go to college and study it, and stuff.
My "work" is not so mysterious as all that . My thesis was on representations of complexity and transcendence in the fiction of William Gibson. Next I either want to write about Neal Stephenson or Kim Stanley Robinson, as well as prepare a distilled version of my thesis for publication, so that I can, you know, share my discoveries with others.
I think "constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe" is the most massively useful thing anybody could try to do. It's a fascinating problem as well. You do have to come to terms with that whole religion thing people were obsessed with for so long, though, and figure out what it was they were actually talking about.
Anyway, this discussion seems to have reached its natural conclusion, and Azera wants his living room back. It was nice talking to you! Vale!
On April 01 2012 11:01 deathly rat wrote: Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time.
This cuts me to the bone
It's funny because your sentence after this is a less sophisticated way of saying nearly the same thing.
On April 01 2012 09:17 HardlyNever wrote: It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on.
Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time.
On the other hand, humanity has got to learn some lessons from history so that certain mistakes can be avoided in the future. I mean, the obvious example is the Nazis and the rise to power of the petite general. The appeasement of a dictator in Germany by countries in Europe for so long was a huge mistake, as well as the USA completely ignoring the genocide that was known to be occurring until they were forcefully brought into the war by the Japanese attack. These things must be a lesson for future generations, because it is a fact that history repeats itself unless steps are taken to ensure it doesn't.
There are innumerable other example one could make, but I think you get the point. You can't predict the future by studying history, but there must be more to it that simply studying History for its own sake.
To be fair, it isn't "gobbledygook" when you know what he is talking about. Whether it is relevant or not is a different story.
Again, people don't learn and make decisions based on history. They use it to further political agendas, more than anything else.
Lets take your "Nazi" example and look at two genocides, both occurring in the 1990s. One is in the Balkans (what was Yugoslavia mostly) another is in Rwanda. One of which the US and the UN directly intervened in, the other, basically no one did (if you research the Rwanda genocide, some UN soldiers are present, but they aren't allowed to take any meaningful action).
The US was heavily involved in the Balkan conflict. When asked, the answer to the media and American public was that we needed to stop a second holocaust, and to intervene whenever genocide on that scale occurred anywhere in the world. Fine. I'm not implying that US/UN involvement in the Balkans was wrong, what I'm saying is there are other political factors bringing us there (not least of which, they are European).
Where is the US in Rwanda? Fucking nowhere. Same thing going on, similar scale, no involvement. Why? No reason to. We aren't learning from history, or fighting to prevent past mistakes. It is only used to further political agendas when its convenient. That isn't to sound pessimistic, it is simply true.
The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.
Can somebody explain this to me? I'm not very good.
The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.
Can somebody explain this to me? I'm not very good.
Haha, it's okay, these are very jargon-y words because communicating these concepts without them takes much longer. the problem is that some people who don't know them get mad and think it is gobbledygook.
demystification means seeing through ideology (the reasons people say that and think that they do things) to the real reasons that lie beneath them. This is the goal of what we call "critical theory."
precondition means the thing that has to happen first before something else can happen
praxis means collective actions that shapes the future for the better (classically, this would be "creating communism" but that word doesn't really mean the same thing that Marx meant by it)
So the idea is that if we want to shape the future for the better, we need to see through the false stories we tell ourselves about why we do things and perceive the real reasons, so that we can plan ahead and take collective action to make our world better. Because this action requires projecting cause-and-effect forward into the future in some way, if the future is TOTALLY unknowable it is a doomed project from the start. This is a popular thing to think these days but I dont believe in it :D
edit: stand up for yourself man. You are super good.
On April 01 2012 09:17 HardlyNever wrote: It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on.
Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time.
On the other hand, humanity has got to learn some lessons from history so that certain mistakes can be avoided in the future. I mean, the obvious example is the Nazis and the rise to power of the petite general. The appeasement of a dictator in Germany by countries in Europe for so long was a huge mistake, as well as the USA completely ignoring the genocide that was known to be occurring until they were forcefully brought into the war by the Japanese attack. These things must be a lesson for future generations, because it is a fact that history repeats itself unless steps are taken to ensure it doesn't.
There are innumerable other example one could make, but I think you get the point. You can't predict the future by studying history, but there must be more to it that simply studying History for its own sake.
To be fair, it isn't "gobbledygook" when you know what he is talking about. Whether it is relevant or not is a different story.
Again, people don't learn and make decisions based on history. They use it to further political agendas, more than anything else.
Lets take your "Nazi" example and look at two genocides, both occurring in the 1990s. One is in the Balkans (what was Yugoslavia mostly) another is in Rwanda. One of which the US and the UN directly intervened in, the other, basically no one did (if you research the Rwanda genocide, some UN soldiers are present, but they aren't allowed to take any meaningful action).
The US was heavily involved in the Balkan conflict. When asked, the answer to the media and American public was that we needed to stop a second holocaust, and to intervene whenever genocide on that scale occurred anywhere in the world. Fine. I'm not implying that US/UN involvement in the Balkans was wrong, what I'm saying is there are other political factors bringing us there (not least of which, they are European).
Where is the US in Rwanda? Fucking nowhere. Same thing going on, similar scale, no involvement. Why? No reason to. We aren't learning from history, or fighting to prevent past mistakes. It is only used to further political agendas when its convenient. That isn't to sound pessimistic, it is simply true.
Well i wouldn't say that every lesson is always learnt, but preemptive intervention is now standard practice in world politics. Obviously the most successful interventions are the ones we never hear about. I think the big problem is that China and Russia have no intention of letting democracy fever take over the world, and so stand in the way of much that the UN try to do, but that is just my little theory.
edit: look up the word gobbledygook and you will see that is exactly what you are engaging in. It does not mean that what you are saying is nonsense, but that it is purposefully full of jargon so that it is unintelligible to 99% of the population so that you can try to appear more intelligent than everyone else.
"The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable."
has the same meaning as
"To see changes that will make our world a better place, we first have to look past our reassuring lies and fables that we have conceived to shield ourselves from the hard truths."
what does "necessarily future-oriented" and "wholly unknowable" mean?
Necessarily future oriented just means that, because of what it is (planning), it is involved with the future. You can't do praxis in the present because it's happening right now - any action you will take is going to be in the future but you are going to have to plan that action in the present without knowing how the future is going to turn out. If you cannot know anything or make any predictions about the future (if it is "wholly unknowable") then you can't do praxis.
If, on the other hand, you can make some predictions about the future within some reasonable degree of certainty and make predictions about what effects your actions will have with some reasonable degree of certainty, then you can do praxis!
It's not full of jargon because I don't want other people to understand. It's full of jargon because that's how experts talk to each other and HardlyNever clearly has the education to understand these words (and if he doesn't, he is a grown up academic and can ask, and won't be offended by jargon because he has his own).
I have no ego invested in trying to appear more intelligent than everybody else. I am quite secure in my intelligence and have nothing to prove on this front. Believe it or not, I am simply genuinely interested in these things and am stumbling down my own little road to knowledge. By trying to explain it to somebody else, I can figure out what doesn't make sense!
What you are referring to is obscurantism, which I try my best not to engage in.
On April 01 2012 09:17 HardlyNever wrote: It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on.
Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time.
On the other hand, humanity has got to learn some lessons from history so that certain mistakes can be avoided in the future. I mean, the obvious example is the Nazis and the rise to power of the petite general. The appeasement of a dictator in Germany by countries in Europe for so long was a huge mistake, as well as the USA completely ignoring the genocide that was known to be occurring until they were forcefully brought into the war by the Japanese attack. These things must be a lesson for future generations, because it is a fact that history repeats itself unless steps are taken to ensure it doesn't.
There are innumerable other example one could make, but I think you get the point. You can't predict the future by studying history, but there must be more to it that simply studying History for its own sake.
To be fair, it isn't "gobbledygook" when you know what he is talking about. Whether it is relevant or not is a different story.
Again, people don't learn and make decisions based on history. They use it to further political agendas, more than anything else.
Lets take your "Nazi" example and look at two genocides, both occurring in the 1990s. One is in the Balkans (what was Yugoslavia mostly) another is in Rwanda. One of which the US and the UN directly intervened in, the other, basically no one did (if you research the Rwanda genocide, some UN soldiers are present, but they aren't allowed to take any meaningful action).
The US was heavily involved in the Balkan conflict. When asked, the answer to the media and American public was that we needed to stop a second holocaust, and to intervene whenever genocide on that scale occurred anywhere in the world. Fine. I'm not implying that US/UN involvement in the Balkans was wrong, what I'm saying is there are other political factors bringing us there (not least of which, they are European).
Where is the US in Rwanda? Fucking nowhere. Same thing going on, similar scale, no involvement. Why? No reason to. We aren't learning from history, or fighting to prevent past mistakes. It is only used to further political agendas when its convenient. That isn't to sound pessimistic, it is simply true.
Well i wouldn't say that every lesson is always learnt, but preemptive intervention is now standard practice in world politics. Obviously the most successful interventions are the ones we never hear about. I think the big problem is that China and Russia have no intention of letting democracy fever take over the world, and so stand in the way of much that the UN try to do, but that is just my little theory.
edit: look up the word gobbledygook and you will see that is exactly what you are engaging in. It does not mean that what you are saying is nonsense, but that it is purposefully full of jargon so that it is unintelligible to 99% of the population so that you can try to appear more intelligent than everyone else.
I'm not the one talking like that. I think you have users confused. I type in this Hemmingway-esque style (lol, I flatter myself) on the internet because it is easy to type and easy to understand.
As far as your original post, it is full of good-guy/bad-guy mentality. The US isn't a positive force in the world. It is a force that furthers US interests. Sometimes that leads to "good" things, sometimes that leads to "bad" things.
The UN was involved in both conflicts, so your theory holds no water. The "ruskies and chinks" could have blocked intervention in Kosova if they wanted to. They didn't. The UN was in Rwanda.
To quote a US intelligence office in Rwanda (I think he was CIA): "Rwanda is a cheese sandwich." Journalist asks him how Rwanda is a cheese sandwich. Officer says "No one cares about a cheese sandwich."
Here's a quote that I like from 'The History of Love', "Ladies and Gentlemen. We are gathered here today to celebrate the mysteries of life. What? No, stone throwing is not allowed. Only flowers. Or money." Made me laugh.
On April 01 2012 11:01 deathly rat wrote: Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time.
This cuts me to the bone
It's funny because your sentence after this is a less sophisticated way of saying nearly the same thing.
I feel it is a mistake to express your ideas in such an elaborate and accurate language in a public forum. You could quote Benjamin, speak of Arago's "human aquariums" as the pretext ouf our Deuleuzian culture, but because it's not a closed discussion between a handful of similarly educated people the most common reaction would be to skip your posts and head on to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that everything written here is public and has little to no purpose if it's not correctly understood by readers.
Isn't communication meant to convey a certain concept or a certain idea?
Yes, possibly. I am just speaking the thoughts in the words that I use to think about them. It would be more of an intellectual labor to translate into more accessible but cumbersome language and at that point it wouldn't really be as enjoyable for me to have the conversation.
As I spend much of my life trying to simplify my language so that the people around me will not consider me obscurantist and become angry, when I find the opportunity to communicate with somebody in my own tongue, so to speak, I like to take that opportunity.
I'm not on TL arguing about the philosophy of history in an attempt to reach some broader audience or proselytize my view, so I'm not going to simplify my language for a general audience that probably isn't interested in the topic to begin with. If somebody were interested, however, I would of course be more than happy to try to explain myself in terms that don't require a degree in theory (although this is not necessarily possible - in the same way that there are concepts in say physics that you really just can't understand without the background. There is not always a good English translation for a piece of jargon; that's why we have the jargon).
One way that I do try to overcome this barrier of communication is to use the socratic method. It is much easier for people without the appropriate background to understand a question than it is for them to understand an answer which I might give. If they are intrigued by the question, they can push themselves to consider possible answers on their own.
If you don't want to be comprehensible for most, then there is no problem, I guess.
However, I do believe that you still use too much jargon sometimes. Even though I still have philosophy classes, I sometimes have trouble reading your posts simply because english is not my native language. While I understand the terms, the syntax can be too dense for me to understand without a second slower read. And we are, after all, in an international forum!
But it's a way to improve my english skills, true.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s0VjI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ouHI.png)
