Epistemology of History Discussion

[benczeb90]

Superior, like slave trade? (No problems with it, right?) And hunting down christians? Oh yeah! Way way better than the inquisition in the dark ages right? Higher culture right there! No doubt the model for every other one. Ave Caesar!
(Though i've no problems with these things you say while playing the game, because it's a game. Talking about it is different.)

[Dirty Chai]

I said "art of war" and "superior", not "culture" and "superior".

No one said Romans were "good.". But neither were any of their neighbors.
Everyone used the slave trade, for example. Everyone.

And then again, we're using the modern definition of "good" as defined by Western Civilization, not invented into its current form until probably the 1800's. So perhaps you might hesitate in the future to take one ancient civilization, and apply modern views to it, as if it was surrounded by polities or states you consider "exemplary" from your 21st century chair.

[benczeb90]

I said "art of war" and "superior", not "culture" and "superior".

Okay, then my apologies.

[juanplay]

My friends remember that judging the past with your own modern mentality is a huge anachronism which prevents you to understand the society you criticize. We should also hold into account that these events happened before the advent of the concept of human rights and that Greek-Roman slavery was quite different from European Slavery of the age of discovery. Regarding christians as i recall there were only perhaps 2 or 3 great persecutions with diocletian`s being the most excacerbated, but for most of the time christians lively peacefully within the empire until they actually took control of it.

[benczeb90]

I think our past is quite different from what we've been taught. The winners and the rulers always modify the past to their liking. We've been taught to see the past through this lense.
The Vatican had more than just enough time to do this in a time when most of the people couldn't write or read. Things that had been uncomfortable were then erased. Things that could jeopardize their claims were modified. If anyone thinks that these things did not happen and only happens today, is quite naive. Media tries to tell you what to know, and you feel that you are well informed. If you research, you're even more informed. WOW.
The whole concept/methodology of historical and archeological research is based on the rule that you can only say things that have 'proof'. Whether it's made up is unknown, though more than half of Charlemagne's charters are proven to be fake. Big deal right? The fact that many of these proofs turned out to be fakes does not mean that the other ones AND other types of proofs aren't made up. If i'm the successor of the Roman power (the R. Catholic Church), i intend to make my past shinier, removing the most of the stains, especially the unwanted claims and embarrassing things that would compromise my and my associates' power.
This methodology causes people to be blind to things that they were supposed to be blind to..things that were erased from the records of the past. This started even in the time of Jordanes who turned out to be a filthy liar. But he was just an 'outpost', most of these people worked in the shadows slowly and surely. The tactic was to write new 'theories' about the past, then remove the existing materials hence history became their works instead of the truth. (worldwide books didn't exist so this was rather easy knowing that the church's hand reached everywhere in Europe by the time of the 12th century)
You can't just pull the sheet off of the nonexistent real history. Because it was made to disappear and was replaced and then combed together to fit the parts. The only way to make them resurface again is to roll up existing infos using plain logic (and not the official methodology) from books/authors that we are discouraged to read from ... or sources that are laying in the shadows well away from the spotlight. For reasons...
The official methodology prevents people to even think about things that they aren't supposed to think of, because it is a built-in logic that with learning, soon becomes their own logic hence historians become the pawns of the elite, the powers of the present and the past. They are working as historians and archeologists. They get money only if they find things that fit in the currently official version. So basically history is pre-ordered and people made/make a living of shaping it by order so it isn't lead by the will of finding/publishing the truth, but getting the monthly salary and the comfort and approval. Not just today. Jordanes was of this type also.
Many things that try to solve this problem are not in English. This is an exception but though it's outdated now, one can get a tough hint of what's/was going on. http://www.cakravartin.com/archives/...-false-history
By now, almost a decade later this research grew tenfold. And it's doesn't exist in English. Still it may just scratch the surface.

For example: The old house of Wessex didn't die out. Edmund didn't die before making children, he had royal marriage in Hungary after they were exiled by Cnut/Knut/Canut the Danish king. But it's almost completely removed from the records and forgotten. The Gutkeled family was originated from that family and it lived on in Hungary. Edmund was killed when he was called back to Wessex but he had a son ... the Gutkeled family of Hungary that made many significant people during the middle ages, was originated from this son. But their records were erased in Hungary during the Habsburg rule. ONly the last Gutkeled's diary remained that stated this, and there were many many contemporary and presently official theories regarding the family's origin and all of them are made up lies. This last member was a woman and she didn't pursue for any crown, she had no son, so there coudn't be any claims so she spoke the truth. And it resurfaced 200 yrs after her death in the 19th century. Somebody doesn't lie in vain. Lies are made when it is sure that it can have/will have the right (expected) consequences. This logic is not accepted by the Methodology. It says that the case is not solved and all the lies are possibilities but this diary CANNOT say the truth. You see, everything is possible but the truth. Lies are international and lay behind kingdoms and families. The web is a single large web. If you accept that our history is shaped by certain intentions (agenda), you can see what were they supposed to hide. Every lie has its logic and it is the same logic every time. If you grab the shoelace, you can untie the knot and roll it up along (backwards) this logic and find the possible truth (the opposite of today's truths).
This is my two cents.

[juanplay]

While history and other social sciences are prone to political manipulation, there are several movements within these disciplines that go against the official narrative of the state, one example would marxism another is the Annales school of France which pioneered the focus on the social structure in historical studies as the use of the concept of mentality to avoid anachronisms. What im trying to say is that if you want to understand the past (which is by itself a historical creation) you must try to get rid of your modern mentality and understand that past on its own terms, otherwise you are just putting the present on top of the past.

[benczeb90]

Understanding the mentality of the past using what? (just continuing your thoughts)

[juanplay]

By studying the social and cultural life of a society, this includes analyzing how they lived, what they felt, what they thought and how they viewed the world around them and themselves. Believe me it is not an easy task, to do this one must study a huge variety of primary and secondary sources, for example the writings, painting, stories, material culture of the time and what others wrote about a society or group in particular. It is hard to explain but if you want to know how this is materialized, i would recommend you to read "the Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II" of Fernand Braudel, an author of the second generation of the Annales School and one of the most important historians of the XX century, in that book you will see how big and complex a historical research can be (this was his doctoral thesis), other authors i recommend are Georges Duby (i would start by reading the "sunday of bouvines" which is by itself a study of medieval war mentality in the XIII century), March Le Bloch, Jacques Le goff, thats it for the french ones. For the Late Antiquity period i strongly recommend Peter Brown`s "the world of Late Antiquity".

[Riothamus]

While history and other social sciences are prone to political manipulation, there are several movements within these disciplines that go against the official narrative of the state, one example would marxism another is the Annales school of France which pioneered the focus on the social structure in historical studies as the use of the concept of mentality to avoid anachronisms. What im trying to say is that if you want to understand the past (which is by itself a historical creation) you must try to get rid of your modern mentality and understand that past on its own terms, otherwise you are just putting the present on top of the past.

Great points guys. A topic for another thread but well said!

[benczeb90]

Please Rio, can you put these posts to an other thread? If i'd post this to a new thread, no one knew why i wrote what i wrote. Thanks.

@juanplay
Thanks. I didn't know of this Annales School. But how can they be so widely accepted if they think so differently?
According to my logic, which i don't intend to force on anyone, things that are accepted and not opposed are not in conflict of the official lies, hence they are additional variations to the same diversion from the truth.
Though this may well be a good example for prejudice, supporting lies with some exceptional confetti doesn't impress me anymore. Though real researchers (not like me) would read everything, because there are seeds of truth in every lie and no one knows how much.

This is just like politics. If there are growing numbers of malcontent people, new political parties start to 'appear' and all are acting according to the same logic: sucking people up with a specific sponge (pre-planned performance for example some outrageous info leakings or something, broadcasted through the media) then manipulate this water (the people) in the sponge with media content specifically made for them hence they behave like they (who finance these newly spawning organizations) want it, and think what they want to think.
Long story short, if you're not content with the food you're getting, they try to hook you to an other feeding machine 'supporting' your brain with an other type of food. = a newly founded organization arises. (of course the organizations that lose the interest of the people slowly get dissolved. and the materials/people reused elsewhere)
The more are these organizations, claiming newer and newer solutions to never ceasing and new problems, the less are the people thinking independently. Because of these opinion and emotion-specific sponges.
Every research is paid for. Be it history or science. Nobody pays for something that doesn't support their agendas. There's money, where there's an agenda to support, and there's sincere logic, where there's a man's will to know the truth.

[juanplay]

To be honest the first thing the department of history in my university told me when i began the career, was to look at the complexity of the world and to be suspicious of dualism, that is intepreting things as either good or bad, lie or truth. The world is much more complex (and for the matter interesting) than that, for there is not a single truth (or no truth at all if we want to take on a post modern point of view) but many perspectives on the same topic, of course many of those perspectives are politically or socially motivated but that does not take aways their validity unless they are poorly researched. These contradictions between research and the political and finantial interests behind it are also valid for the Annales School, given that Braudel received financiation from the Rockfeller foundation to complete his thesis, and this was done because braudel`s methodology and way of thinking presented an alternative to marxist history, which was beginning to take off during that time. But if you read his works you will realize the amazing and beautiful research he has done and the legacy he gave us, historians. That does not mean everything he wrote is completely right, it is not, but there are reasons why his work (the mediterranean) has become a classic among the discipline of history, and those reasons include a new perspective to study the past The Longuée dure (long duration),whiich basically means that in order to understand historical change and continuity one must understand that history often moves slowly as does mentality, which is quite hard to change.

[Riothamus]

Please Rio, can you put these posts to an other thread? If i'd post this to a new thread, no one knew why i wrote what i wrote. Thanks.

@juanplay
Thanks. I didn't know of this Annales School. But how can they be so widely accepted if they think so differently?
According to my logic, which i don't intend to force on anyone, things that are accepted and not opposed are not in conflict of the official lies, hence they are additional variations to the same diversion from the truth.
Though this may well be a good example for prejudice, supporting lies with some exceptional confetti doesn't impress me anymore. Though real researchers (not like me) would read everything, because there are seeds of truth in every lie and no one knows how much.

This is just like politics. If there are growing numbers of malcontent people, new political parties start to 'appear' and all are acting according to the same logic: sucking people up with a specific sponge (pre-planned performance for example some outrageous info leakings or something, broadcasted through the media) then manipulate this water (the people) in the sponge with media content specifically made for them hence they behave like they (who finance these newly spawning organizations) want it, and think what they want to think.
Long story short, if you're not content with the food you're getting, they try to hook you to an other feeding machine 'supporting' your brain with an other type of food. = a newly founded organization arises. (of course the organizations that lose the interest of the people slowly get dissolved. and the materials/people reused elsewhere)
The more are these organizations, claiming newer and newer solutions to never ceasing and new problems, the less are the people thinking independently. Because of these opinion and emotion-specific sponges.
Every research is paid for. Be it history or science. Nobody pays for something that doesn't support their agendas. There's money, where there's an agenda to support, and there's sincere logic, where there's a man's will to know the truth.

I will try and move them to a new thread today. What shall we call the new thread?

[benczeb90]

of course many of those perspectives are politically or socially motivated but that does not take aways their validity unless they are poorly researched.

Validity is decided using the methodology (discipline).
Methodology (discipline) is constructed for first self-defence, then a base for reasoning, and finally, for the prevention of having to face uncomfortable arguments.
If in the end a methodology is accepted to be exclusive, they don't have to even care about alternative/unorthodox (non-official) logic, nor any arguments based on officially not embraced material/source.
Just as how Catolicism was/is dogmatic, the subject of History turned out to be quite similar.

The name of the thread should be ... damn, i don't know!

[juanplay]

Mmm, maybe something like "Historical Studies Dicussion" or "Validity, contradictions and interests in historical research"

[juanplay]

Validity is decided using the methodology (discipline).
Methodology (discipline) is constructed for first self-defence, then a base for reasoning, and finally, for the prevention of having to face uncomfortable arguments.
If in the end a methodology is accepted to be exclusive, they don't have to even care about alternative/unorthodox (non-official) logic, nor any arguments based on officially not embraced material/source.
Just as how Catolicism was/is dogmatic, the subject of History turned out to be quite similar.

The name of the thread should be ... damn, i don't know!

Take into account that many historians and social scientists can use several methodologies at the same time, what defines a methodolgy in a well outlined research are the questions the researcher wants to ask, that will define the nature of the research given that more often than not the sources of information might be scarce and that limits what we can learn from the past.

[benczeb90]

Either way, the historian uses eye-shades, or pre-constructed pathways in fear of being called utopian, non-scientific or anything of the sort. If a historian finds things that may as well cause his carrier to end, he won't pursue those thoughts and will fight those who would pursue them. Today's history is still kept together by money and fear of losing money and reputation.
The clever people who study history in universities, get brainwashed and told how to think instead of how they were born to think. These ties do bind.

[benczeb90]

To say an imaginary example from the past: a historian will by no doubt change historical records to help his king's adversaries, or competitive family branches to lose claim on his king's successors' throne. (i mean successors from his own family branch)
Like if there's an exile, or a male living descendant of a previously ruling lineage conflicting with the interests of the current establishment.

[juanplay]

A good social scientist (and for that matter a good researcher) must see all the alternatives and play with opposing views even if it means not accepting either of them. If a find something that goes against the accepted narrative and i have proof of it, i must present it to my peers for evaluation and discussion. There are many historians that either lost their posts at colleges or saw their prefessional aspirations come to a halt because of their views, but eventually their perspectives can be accepted as it happened with the Annales School which began outside Paris and was not initially accepted.

[juanplay]

Either way, the historian uses eye-shades, or pre-constructed pathways in fear of being called utopian, non-scientific or anything of the sort. If a historian finds things that may as well cause his carrier to end, he won't pursue those thoughts and will fight those who would pursue them. Today's history is still kept together by money and fear of losing money and reputation.
The clever people who study history in universities, get brainwashed and told how to think instead of how they were born to think. These ties do bind.

It can and it happened with medieval chronicles, but that was because the concept of objectivity did not exist, you cant ask medieval people to behave like us.

[benczeb90]

A good social scientist (and for that matter a good researcher) must see all the alternatives and play with opposing views even if it means not accepting either of them.

I totally agree with this.
And as for the rest of the sentences, thanks for telling me these. I can feel the pressure. There can easily be game-breaker decisions if a historian tries to think independently and pursues a scent he chose.