Main > The Round Table

A philosophical question

<< < (3/3)

scott2978:
History, or more importantly the understanding and/or perception of history, is one area where my belief that everyone is entitled to an opinion is suspended, or at least limited. The sentiment that modern life colors our perceptions and interpretations of history is a valid one I think, and it's so subtle that I think even the most history - conscious of us struggle with it at times. The only way to overcome the limitations of one's knowledge is with edification. I think living history events are the absolute best way to accomplish educating people, but that requires that you have a very special breed of historian. Someone willing to accept the limitations of their interpretation of the subject and be capable of admitting what he doesn't know, but is also willing to go to some length towards that ultimately unattainable goal of a perfect impression. I don't think an impression needs to be perfect to have a beneficial effect, but it should be more the product of a keen "medieval eye" and less a creation of expedience. It takes using more than one source of information, learning the strengths and weaknesses of each source, learning how to read what's missing, and a great deal of listening to people to hone a keen "medieval eye". People can be the best and the worst sources of information. Some people have a great deal of accurate info but only on a single subject and everything else they know carries a degree of speculation based on that one favored subject. Others have a great deal of nearly universally wrong info, but even then careful attention may teach the observant historian something. The "medieval eye" in each of us must be trained, honed, and employed wisely in order to glean the most probable truth, and spread that with our impressions and events.

Eva de Carduus Weald:
Someone actually touched on my answer actually. Nobody can know the whole truth about a specific age without actually living through it. What we "know" is based off of the small things left behind that time hasn't had a chance to obliterate and on the surviving documents that are left. That shows a small window into whatever specific age you are looking at. What is written is never the whole story because as they say, "History is written by the victors." Texts are written with the bias of the one doing the writing or the one paying the scribe to do the writing as the case may be. So, saying that, I applaud those who dig deeply into the evidence left behind to piece together as much as we can possible do so to help tell as much of the true story as it is possible to know.

But the gentleman who had such a vastly different view, perhaps he simply took his own particular viewpoint, found a few documents that supported it, and then declared that is the the way it was. I know many people who do that about politics, and current world events, much less things that happened hundreds of years ago.

To me I feel one should do as much as they can and to get as broad a range of research as they can before stating something as factual history, but that is only my opinion and nobody else need agree.

Mike W.:

--- Quote from: Eva de Carduus Weald on 2014-10-28, 15:51:02 ---Nobody can know the whole truth about a specific age without actually living through it.

--- End quote ---

Even that statement has limitations. I live in the 21st century, but I will not say I know the truth of this era. All I know is what I've experienced. The same thing applies to historical sources. When I researched my thesis, I read through numerous Civil War era journals written by military medical personnel and each had a different outlook on the time. One saw the war as a glorious crusade of independence from a tyrannical government, another saw it as a horrid but necessary sacrifice to maintain a nation's unity, and yet another saw it merely as a chance for academic credit and hands-on surgical experience. These three surgeons lived through the Civil War, but all had vastly different outlooks. They each saw the war from their limited point of view and clouded their writings with their individual biases. I wouldn't be surprised if I know more about the Civil War era, than these people who lived in it, simply because as a historian with internet access, I have more knowledge of their world available than they ever did. To be a good historian, you must come to the realization that you will never know the Truth. Even if you had a time-machine to take you back to the 13th century, you'll still be attempting to look at the universe through a keyhole. However, we should always strive to uncover the Truth and get as close as we can in our interpretations.

scott2978:
What a paradoxical twist. The real root of why that man's perceptions are so different is a morass of possibilities seasoned with misinformation and garnished with personal bias. And the idea that even had we both actually lived in medieval times we could both STILL have had similarly divergent opinions of the time really tops it off. However, even given all this, it's still seems possible to carefully glean some measure of "truth" from available sources if one makes enough effort. Especially with material things (though those have their own problems). I guess living history based on a time of limited historical records will always be a dicey proposition. And that does make one question where to draw the line when considering how "historical" one's impression should be.

Ian:

--- Quote from: scott2978 on 2014-10-28, 23:02:31 ---However, even given all this, it's still seems possible to carefully glean some measure of "truth" from available sources if one makes enough effort.

--- End quote ---

That's what's most important.  If we just open the world of history to "everyone can just have whatever interpretation they please", then there's really no such thing as the study of history.  It would literally become make believe at that point.  Obviously we can approach the truth by using the scientific method and appropriate technique.  So I maintain that while history is of course open to interpretation and bias, it's not that open that everyone can just pretend their idea is correct with no empirical evidence.  This is why in academia things must be supportable, peer reviewed, and subject to scrutiny and criticism.

And people can just blatantly misinterpret data when they're not trained to read it.  Two people can look at the same primary source, and have two 180* interpretations.  If one of them has no experience in interpreting historical data, they can very likely have a poor interpretation by all measurable standards. 

Interpretation has to be tempered with reason, and some people are just not equipped to understand what they're looking at.   Interpretation also needs to be honed through training, and an appropriately critical eye.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page