Conquer Club

I'm looking through the threads and trying to find one that doesn't involve atheists versus jay. Hopefully, we can have some good intellectual discussions without the usual bombardment of accusations. I usually get the knee-jerk denial of anything I put forth simply because I'm a believer in Christ. So here's another attempt at some thought-provoking talk and hopefully it will be received without calling me a homophobe or some other silly label.

There are different ways of interpreting history. Some call it a philosophy of history and others call it a system of historical analysis. I'm reading through some books that present a variety of views and hopefully can get some responses on different peoples' views and why.

I've listed some basic views of interpreting history. Feel free to offer your own or possibly a variant of one already listed. If you subscribe to one in particular, please list why the others don't measure up in your opinion.

Where's none of the above and GFY?

strike wolf wrote:Where's none of the above and GFY?

Up your ass. Stop acting like a fucking toddler. How can people actually find this GFY acronym funny? It makes you look like a complete loser to anyone with a hint of intelligence.

stinkycheese wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Where's none of the above and GFY?

Up your ass. Stop acting like a fucking toddler. How can people actually find this GFY acronym funny? It makes you look like a complete loser to anyone with a hint of intelligence.

Sheesh, I just wanted to do it once. No need to throw a tantrum.

strike wolf wrote:Sheesh, I just wanted to do it once. No need to throw a tantrum.

So do you have an actual opinion on one of them? Or do you agree with Henry Ford who said:

"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's dam is the history we made today."

I don't have an opinion that's why I asked about none of the above.

GFY was just so that I actually did it once

Although i picked the hegelian/historical materialism option, you could make the argument that depending on time and place, different interpretations are more fitting. For instance, chinese history is often referred to by scholars as more cyclical via the dynastic cycle. I happen to think in the majority of cases, historical materialism helps us best understand how we have come to be, but like anything...it depends on how well its applied.

got tonkaed wrote:Although i picked the hegelian/historical materialism option, you could make the argument that depending on time and place, different interpretations are more fitting.

GT, I was hoping you'd find this thread. Very glad you're contributing. I actually believe that there is more credence to the Hegelian view than the school of historicism. It's just that historicism is too subjective for me to believe in. Nobody can deny that each culture or generation brings with them their own interpretations of events, but I think history has to be viewed more objectively than that.

Got any good quotes for me, BTW?

hmm....well its not that i dont think that historicism can be valid (after all i am as a result of my discipline a bit of a relativist)

I think sometimes its a bit of a semantic issue. For me (and im not a history expert by any stretch of the imagination) history is best understood as something dynamic, that is interelated to a lot of differnet elements. To borrow form Hegel, if philsophy is the history of philosophy, then we are kinda stuck. After all, and this where id agree with marx a little more, if our superstructure is affected by our substructure, its a bit more detached that simply understanding the philosophy in and of itself.

As far as good marx quotes....i think the famous (paraphrased) quote that history is a summation of class struggle is pretty sensible. I think if one is looking for good Marx stuff, a lot of his writings before he came out with the manifesto are pretty good. Ive read a lot of his stuff in piecemeal and sort of the way that he sets things up is he explains how we got to where we are before he comes out with some of the things he would like to do.

I think some of the other questions that could be asked in this thread is whether or not history is dead as fukyama suggested? Is neoliberal capitalism the end all be all for society, and are we heading to one of the two poor futures for humanity instead of the reconciled society?

Sure you want to go down this path, luns? Don't you think it might lead to another atheists versus skeptics or another you're wrong - I'm right sort of discussion?

I chose the Biblical/Christian view of history.

beezer wrote:Sure you want to go down this path, luns? Don't you think it might lead to another atheists versus skeptics or another you're wrong - I'm right sort of discussion?

I chose the Biblical/Christian view of history.

It's always possible. But I'm hoping that some people will actually engage in this and we can all learn some things. I know what you're talking about though, beez. It's frustrating to be stereotyped, but what the heck, I'll give it a shot anyway. Perhaps some kid will read something interesting here that might inspire him/her.

"History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind." - Edward Gibbon

there are plenty of problems already. what do you mean by "history?" History is not an absolute, it is created by historians. the "past" is an absolute that can never truly be recreated or objectively established. historians interpret the past, and we call it "history."

also, there shouldn't be a christian/biblical category. i'm a christian myself, but it is not clear what this choice would actually mean. we're not talking about creation/evolution. if you really wanted to exclude the religion/atheist debate, why would you put that in the poll?

i like the marxist choice, although unlisted others might be better. it's really quite simple: power and money have always directed the course of mankind. it's truly all about the struggles for power between all the interested parties. it's just like the slogans, "follow the money," or "it's the economy, stupid." everything can basically be reduced to power struggles.

cheers, good thread

I went with Biblical, as the Bible is used quite often in many archeoligical digs in the Near and middle East. It has also been proven to be quite accurate in many aspects.

Well I just cannot leave this thread without saying that "history is just one fucking thing after another."

But of those options I probably interpret history from a cyclical perspective.

Nephilim wrote:there are plenty of problems already. what do you mean by "history?" History is not an absolute, it is created by historians. the "past" is an absolute that can never truly be recreated or objectively established. historians interpret the past, and we call it "history."

also, there shouldn't be a christian/biblical category. i'm a christian myself, but it is not clear what this choice would actually mean. we're not talking about creation/evolution. if you really wanted to exclude the religion/atheist debate, why would you put that in the poll?

i like the marxist choice, although unlisted others might be better. it's really quite simple: power and money have always directed the course of mankind. it's truly all about the struggles for power between all the interested parties. it's just like the slogans, "follow the money," or "it's the economy, stupid." everything can basically be reduced to power struggles.

cheers, good thread

Biblical as in the Bible is used for say, Archeology. Also as a historical reference. That is why it is on here.

Nephilim wrote:also, there shouldn't be a christian/biblical category. i'm a christian myself, but it is not clear what this choice would actually mean. we're not talking about creation/evolution. if you really wanted to exclude the religion/atheist debate, why would you put that in the poll?

cheers, good thread

Thanks for posting.

I can see why you'd think this would degrade into the old Christianity versus Atheist thread, but I'm hoping it won't. I happen to think that there are some good things in each school of history that people can take out and find profitable.

Although not all Christians agree on how to interpret history, there should be some basic agreement:

1. God intervenes in history
2. That He guides it in a straight line (linear)
3. He will bring it to an ultimate conclusion

But there are parts of the other schools that I don't think can be denied either.

chewyman wrote:Well I just cannot leave this thread without saying that "history is just one fucking thing after another."

Someone's been reading their Henry Ford quotes.

Nope, I just watched History Boys last night. FANTASTIC movie and I just wish I had seen the play when I was last in London.

chewyman wrote:Nope, I just watched History Boys last night. FANTASTIC movie and I just wish I had seen the play when I was last in London.

Never seen that show, tell me more. Guess I'll have to go to the website and check out the schedule.

I'm not sure if the play is still on and where. I live in Australia and the movie is finishing tomorrow so it's probably long gone where you live. It's basically about these history students in Britain trying to get into Oxford and Cambridge. It's full of historical references, which if you know your stuff is hilarious. A bit too many homosexuality references for my taste, but as a student of history I will actually be using some of the techniques I learned from watching it. I really couldn't recommend it anymore.

chewyman wrote:I'm not sure if the play is still on and where. I live in Australia and the movie is finishing tomorrow so it's probably long gone where you live. It's basically about these history students in Britain trying to get into Oxford and Cambridge. It's full of historical references, which if you know your stuff is hilarious. A bit too many homosexuality references for my taste, but as a student of history I will actually be using some of the techniques I learned from watching it. I really couldn't recommend it anymore.

Sounds interesting.

History seems to flow, moving through cycles but always with a forward, linear direction. Nations rise, dynasties colapse, markets bloom, dark ages overshadow for brief intervals. And so on. But while it moves in a decidedly cyclical fashion, it does tend to also move in a line. More of a 'cork-screw' really.

Uhh... skews me but yoo dont have feminism.

Caeli wrote:Uhh... skews me but yoo dont have feminism.

Is sexism allowed in this forum, because I have the best reply to this.

This is where semantically i think a few questions have to be asked.

How broad are we talking about when we talk about history?
From what perspective is the viewer guided?
What direction is forward?

To answer 1/2...at least when i think of history, i struggle to believe that things always tend to move in some kind of forward direction. At least for me, when i think of some kind of general linear progression, i dont see a very dynamic picture. There may be slight variation, but with a linear perspective, you can kind of see where things are going. Likewise, if you look at things from a broad enough perspective, i suppose everything is going to look much more linear.

However thats not generally the viewpoint id like to hold. For me, history is something that really isnt always easy to pinpoint in the relative short term after the fact. I dont think many of the colonized people in Africa had much clue what was naturally going to happen once the Europeans arrived. Likewise, i doubt that anyone believed right after the Cuban Missile Crisis that things would unfold a certain way. Nor did anyone know what would happen as Hitler began to rise to power. I think a lot of times, history can go in a lot of different directions, assuming we are viewing it as something that is still to be created, or attempting to view it from a perspective of the times. To this i suppose it would depend on the lens of the observer.

Likewise i disagree with the forward contention. To assume that things have always traditionally moved forward, kind of belies the idea, that we will continue to move in some kind of positive direction or that in some fashion things will end to the good. Although its possible they certainly may, it is highly dependent on the people of the current time to make such things so. The greater the prevalance of this type of sentiment, the more i fear that stagnation could settle in.

I also dont believe that every change in history has been very good for everyone involved. Forgive my eurocentrism, but i dont necesarily believe that the fall of Rome in the west was the forward best thing for the area. Though one could argue that Rome was fading anyway, a 1000 years of relative darkness does not strike me as forward. Likewise i dont see the centuries of colonization as a forward moving advancement of humanity...especially from the perspective of those colonized. Perhaps the if we semantically changed forward to logical....but whose to say we are always logical beings i suppose.

chewyman wrote:Is sexism allowed in this forum, because I have the best reply to this.

Go ahead Chewyboy.. lesse wat ya got.

PS- Tonka: I think yoo lost everyone at "linear progression"... lol i thought it was multiple choice, not essay...