The limit of my history is the limit of my world
I have a six page essay on The Odyssey due this time next week, and so right now I have to prepare for it by procrastinating mercilessly. Fortunately for me, I have this wonderful blog where I can put my thoughts out for everyone to marvel, and I have something to talk about. Whether or not it is fortunate for anyone else, or for my essay for that matter, I leave to posterity.Despite my plans to major in history, I don't have a history class this semester, and I haven't read any books on history since the summer. But this week the long, dry stretch came to an end. I'm about half way through a biography of Bismarck I acquired from last year's lost and found in the honors house, and I'm already back to my old tricks, i.e. I've found a dozen minor points where I disagree with the author.
The other thing that reading Bismarck reminded me of was the idea of history; in other words, what is history? What does 'history' mean? Generally it's considered to be a description of the past using documents and other artefacts. The documents themselves are pretty pedestrian; it is very rare that we find a new document, the existence of which alone throws our idea of history out the window. No, usually it is the other half of history, the analysis of history, that major ideas come out. Here lies both the failure and the triumph of history. On the one hand, history becomes essentially English with archaic nonfiction; any analysis that can be supported is then valid enough to deserve recognition. No one wants to figure out all that has happened in the past, it is an impossible task anyway, so let's just figure out what it means. So people are no longer using the past at all, but simply putting a modern spin on old documents. History is often not a study of the past, but a study of present popular opinion. At this point I admit that I feel tears well up in my eyes.
But look! some part of me cries out. Look! See all of the good history has done for you. It can't be utterly meaningless. And the voice is right; lots of good does come from the study of history. Despite the seemingly inadequate method of teasing the knowlege out of the artefacts, we learn things from history. In fact, I believe that history, as it is right now, can tell us everything about people.
But why does history work? How can it describe humanity so well? I think there are two reasons.
First, there are three ways of gaining knowledge: reason, experience, and insight. Philosophers generally believe the first is the most powerful, scientists the second. Though the other two are very important, I think insight is overlooked. It is the key to so many disciplines: English criticism (despite my ragging on it), theology, and history. Any time we extrapolate ideas to find out what something means we are using our insight. No matter how flawed it seems to be to those who subscribe to the first two methods, it seems to work.
Second, the reason insight works for history, and the reason why our imperfect knowledge of history can tell us everything about people, is because of the basic unchanging nature of humanity. People really don't change; the language changes, but it can be translated because there are similar experiences. Customs change, but they can all be expressed in terms of other customs. Technology changes, but the goals of the new technology is the same as the old. I hate to admit it, but English criticism can often tell us the stuff history tells us better than history, but only because the literary cosmos is less complex than the real world. But that's what literature is: a written universe, often meant to explain some parts of our own. History tells us our own story, but we can't understand all of it. This is when it's time to get out the empiricism and logic that the scientists and philosophers have.
P.S. Did everyone notice that all my majors correspond to a different aspect of gaining knowledge?
posted by Emmett @ 17:11
5 Comments:
Just in case you don't read the comments for your last post:
I thought they wouldn't let you do that. I know it's almost expressly forbidden at the U. What's Pierre doing, anyway? I thought he wanted to be a mechanic.
So, the first thing that popped into my head was, "What kind of money are you going to be earning with that background?" The second thought was how much it was going to cost you in the first place, and the third was the workload! They all happened within 1 second of reading "Philosophy, Psychology, and History, with a minor in Mathematics."
Seriously, why mathematics? And what of psychology? I think I'd only take a psychology course again if they taught me how to hypnotize people. I know you love history, but in your most recent post you criticized the modern approach to history, or, rather relating history to today instead of keeping it pure and in context, if I understand your complex and shifting thoughts.
My fourth thought was that we'll see if you die before you graduate or if you give up on all that and find out you hate history, loathe trying to dissect thoughts, despise Plato and Aristotle for their puny minds, and wonder what in the world you were thinking when you ever took up mathematics. After you throw all those away, I'm betting you'll have an epiphany and realize you should do all those and add pre-med courses so you can pay off your Giza-Pyramids-sized student loans by becoming a brain surgeon. That'd be great for you, as you could dissect the synapses that create thoughts, and do a little experimenting with your background in psychology. Snip Snip! "Oops! My Bad. Hmmm. Interesting." You can use your philosophy knowledge to decide if what you are doing is right, and you can use your mad mathematics skills to add up all the dough you'll be earning doing a rewarding and fulfilling career. Oh, and you'll have to practice your numbchuck skills to fend off those pesky medical malpractice attorneys that will be swarming your office.
Gooooooood Luck!
DOWN WITH LOGIC AND EXPERIENCE! INSIGHT IS THE ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE!
...Just kidding. They're all intertwined, really. An author must have great insight into human nature to write a powerful book, yes, but he must also have experienced life in order to shape his insights into fictional events people can understand, and he must present his entire story in a logical, structured method....
And to console you concerning the point of history being a study in present popular opinion: Read history books published in all ages. You do it anyway; so not only are you getting the history, but you're learning about the traits of the society which generated the textbook.
You rock, Emmett. Just to let you know.
I do read history books published in all ages, you're right, Paul, but listen to what you're saying. I go back to read a history and all I get is a modern social commentary. The idea of 'history' as we know it disapears.
And, also yes, but you are too narrow in your definition. We all rock. I like the idea that this is the generation that is going to change the world, what with you people and the people I meet up here.
Oh, wait. None of us, (except maybe Chris) cares enough to change the world. Oh well.
Well, it's our job, so maybe we'll just go ahead and do it anyway. And then get back to the important stuff. ;)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home