A philosophical question

[scott2978]

Please bear with me as I lay out the background for this question of philosophy, faith and perception.

Remember that thread about the guy who believed the middle ages were a time of enlightenment, honor and chivalry etc?

I've lately been thinking about how I would describe my own interest in historical arms and armor, medievalism, medieval living history and just medieval history in general to someone who knew nothing of such things. No, I'm not anticipating an awkward meeting with the potential in-laws, it's just a philosophical question.

If I were to say "I'm an enthusiastic armature living history aficionado interested in learning the truth of daily life in medieval times", that other guy could (for the sake of argument) say the same thing about himself. Yet our views of the medieval period are vastly different. I'm using that guy as an example, but really there are lots of people who view medieval time differently from most of us here.

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?

Keep in mind this is purely a philosophical question and not a rant about how others see things differently. I mean only to provoke an introspection of our own perceptions. I'm just curious to know your thoughts.

[Mike W.]

Welcome to the wonderful world of historiography, where Truth is evasive and nobody agrees.

[Mike W.]

The only way to adequately answer that question is with a semester long 400 level course in historiography. However, I'll try to sum it up for you.

The ways in which history is interpreted by various people over time (a.k.a. Historiography) depends largely  on the individual who is doing the interpretation. Difference in interpretations result from differing ways in which sources were accessed, different ways in which they were researched, different contexts in which they were viewed, individual personal biases (everyone's got them), different thought patterns of the individual, and different life experiences of the individual. Historical research is a complex procedure that is more than just picking up a primary source and reading. A person inexperienced in historical research will come to erroneous conclusions. A heavily biased person will bend, obscure, and alter data to fit their biases.

Historical Truth is ever-evasive and impossible to know (any post-modernist historian will tell you it doesn't exist), but we can at least come close by studying and analyzing the evidence left behind. That being said, the evidence is often vague and missing context which makes it open to interpretations.

[Sir James A]

Baron summed up my thoughts well, regarding differences of interpretations. Someone might say "the brutality of medieval warfare" and another might say "the chivalric combat in medieval times" and they are substantially different views of the same thing.

I think part of it is also that there is a nearly impossible chance that two people have read the exact same sources and only those sources. Some can infer things not explicitly spelled out by referencing things they've read on the same subject in other books, and others may fill those gray areas with their own thoughts or opinions without any factual evidence for it.

I get the feeling of back in high school days when you'd read an assignment for class. So you come to class to talk about To Kill A Mockingbird, and you talk about the great depression. The teacher says you don't understand, that what the book is very plainly about is just a bunch of symbolism for innocence, torment and racism; but those things are never explicitly stated in the book at all.

I think some people have the same thing with history. They can take some basic facts and extrapolate concepts and ideas from them, thinking their interpretation is clearly the correct one. I know I'm guilty of having done so before.

[Sir Douglas]

That’s actually a question I ask myself a lot, and on a whole myriad of topics, not just historiography. It’s like when you “know” something that seems so clear and obvious to you, it’s hard to understand how someone could perceive it differently. Like they say, there are three sides to every story: Yours, mine, and what really happened.

[Thorsteinn]

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?

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.

[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.]

Nobody can know the whole truth about a specific age without actually living through it.

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]

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.

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.