|
Rudolph
|
posted 7/13/06 10:49 AM
Why should one believe in the past's existence? Who writes history, and why? What bearing does the writer's personal feelings have to do with his perception of facts? How does one judge the validity of a source, if there is no source to the source? The only preceding material would be even older books written by a different generation, explaining the world and state of affairs as it was before in a general manner.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~For example, if there was 50 years of peace, and war broke out rather suddenly, and unexpectently (world wide), then that material would not have shown or necessarily have focused on the social/economic issues which set off the events which were to unfold shortly thereafter, or which contributed to the conflict. When did history ever capture latency? Isn't that why global events are often called unexpectant, because of its nature-being latent. - Granted, there are always prophets, but who listens to gloom and doom all the time?~~~~~~~~How facts are judged to be true and which are decided upon to be included are surely influenced by social conventions of the time... where do they link with the contemporary? And since man is a perfectionist, he continues to rewrite older material, with a contemporary view of the past. It's like translating a Polish book into French, then into English from the latter, disregarding the Polish original.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~So, how can hindsight be perfect if we're not even sure what we're looking at?
|
