“History Is For Fools”

The greatest college course I took was in my first semester and was part of the core requirements. It may have had the title “The Meaning of History”.

On the first day, Professor “White”, gave us our first assignment: Is History an Art or a Science? Twelve years later, I first read Fredric Nietzsche’s essay, The Use and Abuse of History. Around the same time, I bought Roger Waters’ “album” Amused To Death in cassette tape format, it being 72 minutes in duration.

Within, Waters may have made the following associations:

History is for fools because memory is a stranger.

History is for fools because man is a tool in the hands of God (The Great One, The Almighty).

The first is the very essence of what Professor “White” asked of us in his course on History, The Meaning.

Discuss; But, first remove duct tape.

 

So what is the alternative? Live in the moment with no connection at all to the past? Have no idea how we got here or why we do the things we do?

Also, could you quote the lyrics where he makes these "associations"? I looked all through the lyrics and didn't find any such thing.

 

Yes and the former lead singer of Pink Floyd is my first stop on all historical discussions

 

Ignorance is for fools.

There is no escaping history - the world we live in today and the world we will live in tomorrow have all been shaped by history.

Furthermore, history is a great teacher and guide. The lessons it teaches us can help us avoid the mistakes past generations made.

 

Do you mean to employ that logical fallacy? Statements that fit the description “logical fallacy” are, <*cough*> by definition false. (I can’t believe I had to type that.) To clarify, there can be no guarantee that any person will make a false assertion.

Think about it--but don’t hurt yourself.

You don’t find the association here?

Do you mean discussions about History or discussions about facts of history?

 

I asked that the duct tape be removed first, as it impedes the proper flow of blood, obviously.

There is no alternative. Waters did not reveal what he means by that line. Everyone knows the fate of a story retold repeatedly and everyone knows, especially law enforcement and lawyers, the reliability of memory for very serious matters.

Do I have to continue?

For the record, Nietzsche never suggests in his essay that knowledge of History should be abandoned.

I can only presume that Waters meant that only fools don’t know the limits of historical accounts--HE PRECEDES THE LINE WITH “Memory is a stranger”.

Let’s not forget that everything that isn’t present is past and all past is history.

Any person who does not consider any “History” as potentially false is a fool! (I didn’t quote anyone there.)

 

Ah, I see now. Yeah, I'm not one for fancy rhetoric. You see, to me there is a big difference between "History is for fools" and "Any person who does not consider any 'History' as potentially false is a fool", plus I usually don't look to song lyrics for philosophical illumination.

 

1. Historical movements change their forms and are not recognized. For example, the present immigration could be effectively the same as the invasions of past history and should be dealt with the same way others have been turned back.

2. Historians don't know how to connect the dots, they only know how to collect the dots. So their conclusions shouldn't be respected just because they did a lot of work to pile the material together.

3. Acadummies have too much respect for what is written down. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, no one wrote about his subconscious fear that Western Europe would be taken over by Islam if it didn't change radically, but that is what caused the Renaissance. Second, in the history of words, the etymologists refuse to recognize that dog is related to pre-historic words meaning "pointer" because the word wasn't written down anywhere until the Middle Ages. No one recognizes that Israel was set up solely as a decoy to the next jihad because no leader dared to write that down and offend the high-strung Muzzies, etc...

 

Where did you read that that? The Ottomans were not the only ones who were of the Muslim faith in Anatolia nor the only state even after the 1453.

And I don't think that a conflict between east and west caused the renaissance. I'd argue that the Chinese fleet which encountered Venice in 1421 which in turn provided maps so that future navigators and explorers had some idea of where to go.

 

History is all about people and as a species we haven't changed that much since we dropped out of the trees and began walking upright on the savannah. History is a great teacher and is kinder than individual experience as a teacher where you get the test first and the lesson later. History is about recording what happened. I think it was Lester Thurow who said we tend to eff up every eighty years or so because individuals who could tell you "I wouldn't do that if I were you" are largely dead. History is an agglomeration of "I wouldn't do that if I were you" advice. We only have to listen to it but sadly all too often we don't.

 

First you can cut back on the snide remarks. Does not encourage positive debates.

However to have this debate perhaps you should try defining your terms. You are mixing public memory with history. Often the two are not reconcilable.

Many think Columbus discovered America, many also think that part of Columbus' voyage was tyo prove the world was not flat. Regardless of what public memory is on the topics, does not change the historical truth of the events.

 

Yes, I agree and I apologize.

People have memories individually. Accounts are recorded. Accounts==history.

Oh my....

 

History is meaningless.

That means that the Cubs might actually win a World Series this year.

There might actually be peace in the Middle East in the near future.

And collectivism may actually bring us the ever elusive utopia they keep insisting can be ours.

 

I said public memory not individual - As I mentioned in the example of Columbus. We have excellent records and diaries etc that outline what Columbus did. We know Columbus was not the first to try to pitch the idea. We know he flat out lied to get the expedition underway. We know he never visited North America, but the USA celebrates Columbus day. We also know why this is. If you were to stop the average person in the street, you would get an entirely different set of answers.

You would get what they "think" history is

 

History might teach us a lot.

But no one reads it.

 

There is no such thing. No. No. No.

Visited North America? Visited?

The first two sentences are like saying he didn’t “discover America” because he had dandruff.

Columbus discovered what we now call two Continents and did not fall off the edge of the Earth: Live it; love it; learn it--and like it a lot.

Now we are to wait for exactly what this is is in, “We also know why this is”; please.

 

Sad but true...

 

It's probably safe to say that many factors contributed to the birth of the Renaissance. Alexander Vasiliev attributed it to the arrival of Byzantine scholars in Italy who revived the interest in Classical learning that led to the Renaissance.

 

**Shrugs** well I guess thats the end of this discussion then

 

Hey that's a good one. Seems much better than the East vs West story. And yes I do agree there were many factors as is the case in the big periods of history.

I still think that trade and exploration were among the most important aspects though.

 

I think it is tough to draw a line in the sand over causes and influence. I suspect that we are suffering from the need to create periodic divides in history. If we lived back then I dont think we would noticed much of anything until years later.

 

Whatever you are told to think by academic pedophiles who are paid to stunt your mental growth is OK with me; I always need a good laugh. Marco Polo knew where to go, but his travels didn't provoke a radical change.

 

That is rather offensive to me.

I've not been trained by academics despite receiving a great deal of good feedback from said academics.
I'm 24 years of age. Left college at 17 and have worked ever since then, all the while building up my knowledge.
In fact I'm intent on going to university next year for the purpose of studying Arabic.

That whole statement is something I take offence to. You have not had the simple decency of opposing my statement with a reasonable rebuttal.

Apologise or be ignored. I will not be subject to other peoples insults especially just because you feel like it.

 

I agree. It's easier to divide history as you said because history is such a big subject.
And yes if we did live back in the day we wouldn't of noticed or really cared that much.

Actually the more I look at the past the more I see in common with the present and that while technology e.t.c. may change that human society or rather human nature tends not to change quite as quickly.

 

Trade most definitely played a major role. The Byzantines/Greeks and Italians (most particularly the Venetians, Genoans and Pisans) actively traded with one another. In fact, this trade was so extensive that the Italians eventually established their own quarters along the Golden Horn in Constantinople (you can find them on the map in small blue text at center right):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Byzantine_Constantinople_eng.png

Unfortunately, the relationship between the Latins and Greeks wasn't always mutually beneficial:

Massacre of the Latins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

Fourth Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

Siege of Constantinople (1204)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(1204)