Main > The Round Table

A philosophical question

<< < (2/3) > >>

Thorsteinn:

--- Quote ---So here is my question, worded in several ways: How can the two of us view the same evidence but arrive at such different conclusions? What makes my perceptions so different from his? What/how do I see the medieval period in a different light than he does?
--- End quote ---

Easy. You are not him. He is not you.

The words Story & History spring from the same branch.

scott2978:
Thanks for the insightful comments everyone.

Ian:
There is of course a distinction between different interpretations and flat out wrong interpretations.  Not all historical fact is purely subject to interpretation.  While many things may be valid to interpret differently there are aspects of history that can be empirically backed up with evidence, and things that have academic consensus.  Challenging these things can be valid, but it's also slightly absurd to play counter-culture just for the sake of playing counter-culture.

Interpretation must be tempered with reason.

So while that redditor has the right to have his opinion of the Middle Ages being all puppy dogs and rainbows, academic consensus, reason, and evidence dictates otherwise.  So he has the right to be wrong, which by all standards he is.  You can have your own interpretation, but it's not always right or even valid.

Sir Patrick:
I think another pitfall people an fall into is the "Revisionist Historian", where one views the actions of people in history though the modern lens. The Middle Ages were vastly different than our modern world. Things were would consider brutal atrocities were just "good for business" back then, particularly in regards to kingship. For example:  The execution of hostages when an oath was broken. We would consider that cold-blooded murder, but for a medieval king to NOT do it would be a sign of weakness that could, in fact, destabilize the state. Put another way, mercy would be irresponsible.  Certainly there are exceptions, but you get my point.   So you can't let modern morality taint the "facts" when viewing the academic evidence. I think that's why we have some of these counter arguments that Sir Ian described.

Lord Chagatai:
Each person is there own man and each has their own opinion. That is the wonderful thing about philosophy is that each man has a different philosophy than the other. My philosophy does not match yours but each comes from the same core, just interpreted differently.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page