textman
*
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy /
] Subject Thread > Re: History [#1] / 28Feb07 /
.
"History is the supreme subject / discipline / pursuit, because it
is basically the sum total of all known human-reality (ie. for it
encompasses all aspects of human being and achievement: art,
religion, science, culture and technology, society and civilization,
even philosophy, etc). Moreover, History is also a matter that ought
to concern everybody, as everyone participates in "Making History"
simply by virtue of having a set of detailed personal memories.
History is thus the collective memory of the entire human race.
Without History we are indeed little more than wild (and
dangerous) animals!" -- textman ;>
.
> On 27Feb07 sys d wrote: Alright, first post.
.
wurm say: Hey, sys d. Welcome to the philosophy-forums!
Hope you enjoy your stay. Be fruitful and multiply, as they say. :)
.
> I've been brooding over this one for a while, but haven't been able
> to think of any conclusive answer. ... Is history shaped by the few
.
Of course!
.
> or gradually, by the masses? Is it the views of those
> charismatic leaders
.
I'm not too happy with the sociological term 'charismatic-leaders',
as it is *somewhat* misleading (although it is better than most of
the other terms that have been tried before). I much prefer something
like 'seminal individuals', and/or something along the lines suggested
by Karl Jaspers (the ever-awesome German existentialist).
.
> that have shaped the course of humanity or is it the culmination of
> the actions of the many? Is the answer either or does it lie some-
> where in between? Discuss.
.
Strictly speaking, History is shaped by the culmination of the actions
of *all* the historical actors/persons/individuals that have come and
gone. Of course, some people have a greater impact upon the progress
of history than others; and this is where the idea of history-being-
driven comes from. I tend to agree that history is shaped more by great
individuals than by the masses. If anything, the masses are an awesome
conservative force that works as a brake against change (any kind of
change!), slowing things down, and giving the world a chance to get
used to radical changes gradually.
.
4X: In ancient Egypt, the prophet-pharaoh Akh-en-Aton (aka Amen-
hotep IV) introduced the then unthinkable concept of one-god. And the
people hated it ... naturally. But a mere century later Moses picked up
that weird ball and ran with it. And so today the majority of believers
are monotheists. Now *if* this can be called progress, I don't know;
but it's pretty clear that the Great-Ones have to carry the masses
kicking and screaming into the future, else they would never get there
at all. Indeed, if they had things their way, we would all still be
sitting around the camp-fire gnawing on half-raw reindeer leg-bones! :(
.
Thus there is a right way and a wrong way to learn about *anything*.
For example, if you want to know about Catholicism, say, you can just
go down to the local parish church and chat up the first available priest
or nun. And you could even learn a great deal about Catholicism by doing
this. But an even better way would be to then go to the nearest and
biggest library and look into all of the church-history books that mention
of things relating to Roman-Catholicism (which is a lot). You would have
to read a great many such books to get a balanced impression, of course,
and it would take up a lot of time, of course, but it's really the only
way to do the job right. And the same goes for any other topic you could
name. You can learn a little philosophy from the wwweb, but nothing
can replace the absolute need for the primary sources themselves:
philosophical literature in paperback form. Get some today! :D
.
- the almost historic one - cybrwurm ;><
x
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy /
] Subject Thread > Re: History [#2] / 2Mar07 /
] Post Title > More Stuff on Tut
.
> On 1Mar07 sys d wrote: [snip] Yes, I'm currently studying
> Akenahten, but I believe that people mainly hated him
> because he was an egotistical asshole.
.
wurm say: Wut? ... Who have you been listening to? Or is this your
own considered judgment, reached after careful and prolonged
investigation and analysis? In either case, you may rest assured that
you are completely mistaken about this. Frankly, there is simply no
possible way that the people of ancient Egypt hated him *because*
he was an "egotistical asshole". Some may have hated him for *other*
reasons; but the one you cite would be found nowhere on that particular
list! In fact, you're simply projecting your own feelings onto people
who did NOT think or feel as you do, and you're doing it *without*
just cause or reason.
.
> The whole one god thing was just another way of expressing his
> ego - Ra was his favorite god. [snip]
.
Izzat so? Well, sys d, you must not be studying very hard because
you don't seem to be aware that Akh-en-Aton's *one&only* god was
named 'Aton' (ie. the sun-disk). Hence the new name he gave him-
self; ie. his pharaoh-name was initially Amenhotep IV, after his
father (Amenhotep III), naturally. :)
.
Moreover, your entire attitude toward one of history's first and
greatest individuals is loathsome, to say the least. With that kind
of attitude going you will never be in a position to understand the
great men and events that changed the tides of history. Hell, you
might as well just pack it up right now, pal, cause the study of
History (in all its great glory) seems wasted on you; alas. :(
.
Thus you speak of his greatest achievement/invention/discovery
as if it were incidental and irrelevant, and of no real significance
to the course of History. Nothing could be further from the truth!
I tell you plainly: no single man has had a greater or more
profound impact upon the shape of human history than this bizarre
and outrageous black man! And that includes the Buddha, Socrates,
Alexander, Jesus Christ, and anyone else you might care to name.
Maybe you ought to think about that the next time you're tempted
to call him "an egotistical asshole", eh sys d?
.
Moreover, I find your declaration that his primary motives somehow
involved "expressing his ego" to be the very epitome of ignorance.
You have to study the whole sweep of Egyptian history before you
can even begin to think of making snap-judgments and oh-so-easy
assumptions. In point of fact, having a 'big-ego' was an understood
and accepted part of what it means to be a semi-divine pharaoh.
.
Thus it was soon *after* Akh-en-Aton that the pharaohs began
building huge statues of themselves. Ever hear of the "Colossus
of Ramesses II"? Do you seriously think that such things have no
relevance or relation to Akh-en-Aton, or to the powerfully radical
ideas he sowed into the fertile soil of ancient Egypt? Do you really
think that the new emphasis on Great-BIG-Huge-Pharaohs is any-
thing other than a conservative and infantile reaction AGAINST
Akh-en-Aton (who basically declared that kings were NOT gods) ?!?
.
> His son (widely known as King Tut) spent most of his short life
> attempting to undo what his father did.
.
Again your ignorance is showing through, sys d. Actually, Tut was
little more than a convenient pawn of the priests; the same ones
who promptly had him killed just as soon as his usefulness came
to an end (ie. as soon as he had matured enough to know his own
mind, and thus think for himself). You think the pharaohs didn't
know how Tut was murdered? You think the people didn't know? No
one then was as ignorant of these things as the greatest "experts"
of today are! And it was *that* corrupt and brutal priestly-system
that Akh-en-Aton was *trying* to do away with.
.
Truly, the only mistake that son-of-aton made was that he bit off
more than he could chew ... obviously. Thus it looks to me like
Akh-en-Aton's revolution is yet incomplete, as those very same
swine-priests STILL hold power over the majority of humankind.
... So sys, how does it feel to be completely brainwashed by
those pious *'s (and their flunkies), and not even know it?
.
> [snip] I hope I'm not told to UTFSE.
.
What's 'UTFSE'?
.
-- the almost colorless one - cybrwurm ;;>
.
P.S. We are ALL indeed 'Out of Africa' ; In more ways than one!
x
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy /
] Subject Thread > Re: History [#3] / 4 March 07 /
] Post Title > Fire & Stone First ... Then What?
.
>> wurm previously wrote: Wut? ... Who have you been listening to?
>> [snip a *ton* o' quotes!]
>> So sys, how does it feel to be completely brainwashed by
>> those pious *'s (and their flunkies), and not even know it? [snip]
.
> On 2March sys d replied: Someone's angry.
.
wurm say: Ha! You just happened to mention one of the few historical
incidents that I just happen to be particularly interested in. Lucky U! :)
.
BTW: There's no need to quote huge blocks of text, like you just did.
It's sloppy and pointless, and does nothing to encourage your readers.
You don't want to get a rep for being a lousy poster, now do you?
.
> I was aware of Tut being a pawn of the advisors, and I did mess
> up the name of the god. How am I brainwashed by the pious?
.
Brainwashed by the priests and their flunkies; *and* their
archeologist-mouthpieces who like to raise a lot of flak and nonsense
about Akh-en-Aton, so as to obscure his real significance in History.
.
> I know that they hold most of the power in government,
> and I think that is the going to be the bane of us all.
.
Roger that. Conservatives and Christians in the same political bed
is always a sure-fire recipe for rampant fascism! :(
.
> Religion and state should be kept apart.
.
Yeah, great idea; except that in practice the judges and politicians
all tend to be reactionaries (ie. conservatives and/or christians).
.
> In the past (especially in Egypt), I believe that it was necessary
> for them to be integrated because religion validated the rulers.
> But now ...
.
Well maybe, but it was much more than that. The "religious" world-
view permeated every aspect of human life and culture for thousands
of years, after gradually displacing (and incorporating elements from)
the more mythical world-view that flourished under the polytheistic
systems of the ancient world. It was only in the 16th century, after
the Renaissance and Reformation had paved the way, and prepared the
groundwork (as it were), that the "scientific" world-view arose to finally
offer a rational alternative to the mythical/religious world-views.
.
And here we are three centuries later, and most people are *still*
committed to the religious way of viewing life, the universe, and every-
thing. Technology changes, culture changes, and our knowledge of the
universe increases (even as our ignorance decreases). But despite all
that, people remain *very* slow to change themselves, and so the
masses are just as stupid and retro as they ever were. 'Freedom of
Religion' now means the freedom to be a bronze-age throwback; ready,
willing, and able to impose any irrational fascist-ideology on every-
thing and everybody. Go figure.
.
>> Akh-en-Aton (who basically declared that kings were NOT gods) ?!?
.
> I was not aware of that point.
.
No reason you should be. It's just another aspect of the black-pharaoh
that the "experts" don't want getting around (let alone out and into the
"mind" of the general-public). Nevertheless, Akh-en-Aton's achievement
was/is profound; albeit generally misunderstood and/or attacked. By
means of his one-god, what he did was to redefine the role/being of the
pharaoh/king away from the mythical 'divine-man' world-view towards a
more rational and humanistic (albeit still religious) world-view that
sees all men as equally human.
.
Now such a radical departure from the prevailing (and very long running)
myth-soaked-world could only be accomplished by a king in the ancient
world. So the question arises: Why would *any* king embrace such a
bizarre idea as would sooner or later deprive him of real-world authority?
It seems a very unkingly thing to do; to me anyway. The picture of a
king being led to his execution spitting defiance and summoning the
wrath of God down upon the heads of the people is far more in line with
the common definition of what it means to be a king. Obviously Akh-en-
Aton is not *that* kind of king. No indeed, he was the kind of king who,
because of his actions, made it *possible* for kings to be executed. He
did this by rejecting the mythical idea that kings are gods (and/or semi-
divine), and by necessarily redefining and reshaping the role/being of
pharaoh/king into something else. Something that would now fall under
the category of 'prophet'.
.
In conceiving and achieving both of these world-shaking innovations (ie.
denying all gods in favor of just one supreme god, and re-making the king
in humanistic-religious terms) Akh-en-Aton basically created, defined,
and discovered those weird people we now know enough to identify as
'prophets' (of which History has many). Thus Aton was the one-god, and
Akh-en-Aton was his prophet. ... Wow, wut a concept! And of course the
priests and the prophets have been at odds (not to say at each other's
throats) ever since; check out church-history for all the gory details.
.
So now think about how Evolution & History are so much alike, so inter-
twinned, so interdependent and inseparable. Are they not both immense
and unstoppable cosmic forces in process? Terrestrial biology based on
terrestrial chemistry in never-ending motion according to the immutable
universal-laws which are written into the very structure of the atomic
and sub-atomic realms? Are they not equally blind and directionless and
overwhelming?
.
Indeed, Evolution & History appear to be two aspects of the same
process. Yeah, just two peas in a pod. Like Biology and Art. Learn the
one and you'll know all about the other? NOT! History emerges out of
the chains and darkness of the mindless cosmic-chemistry and takes on a
life, a dynamic, a process and purpose, that is all its own. Still always
within and of the world, human-being now also exists/survives/lives in
*another* world: a world reshaped (in part, always *only* in part)
according to the will of countless generations of ancestors and
predecessors and forefathers. And *this* was the "new-thing" that
was; (ie. some thirty thousand years ago).
.
So think now about how History suddenly emerges out of the dim mists
of eternal and primeval pre-history in the form of a developed
agricultural society / civilization / culture, and then almost immediately
spawns cities, written records (soon to develop into literature), priests,
and kings. Thus the move from a stone-based culture to a metal-based
culture ended man's *absolute* reliance upon the world to define his role
and being (ie. hunter-gatherer), and freed him to define his role in
*other* terms (eg. farmer, herdsmen, potter, blacksmith, priest, warrior,
king, etc etc).
.
And this is where History (as our knowledge of past human history)
begins. The mythical world-view was the biggest absolute there was in
those days. And do not think that it has gone away! Much diminished,
yes, but never gone or forgotten, the mythical world-view (with all
its feelings and associations) persists and abides in many and various
subtle ways in *all* cultures and civilizations (and NOT just in the
overtly "religious" people either); another persisting legacy of our past.
.
And yet that ancient Egyptian notion that kings (and, by extension,
everybody else) were not divine, but only (or merely) men, was as
revolutionary and pivotal to the development of human culture as the
discovery of fire. Eventually, Akh-en-Aton's discovery won out, and
the era of the divine-men ended. But the priests soon got around that
hurdle by declaring that the king's authority derives directly from God
(and this is the biblical view). And the Pious-Ones continued to attack
the forces of reason (Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc); and continue to
do so unto this very day, in many and diverse ways. And so it took a
few more thousand years before this latest lie (ie. the divinely-
authorized king) was finally overcome. Can you say 'French Revolution'?
But the lies didn't stop there, of course.
.
Thus you can think of History as being basically an ongoing condition
or process of cultural-warfare. History is a war between the wills of all
those men-of-power who have made their mark in the world. There are
two sides to this warfare; the military / economic / political side, and
the mythological / religious / ideological side. Civilization allows many
men and women to become individuals who choose and make their own
destiny: warriors and princes and nobles, kings and emperors, monks and
priests, saints and popes, killers and villains, philosophers and writers ...
*All* are engaged in shaping the world according to their own under-
standing and vision, according to their own unique and personal will.
The men themselves come and go (and leave their traces behind), but the
war-of-wills continues and abides forevermore amen. Thus you can now
see that the significance of Akh-en-Aton lies in the realm of ideas (ie.
religion and philosophy), and in the historical fact that he was the
first known individual to deliberately kick the historical process in the
direction that leads eventually to our own global-culture of the 21st century.
.
BTW: If you're really interested in a nice general overview of history,
might I recommend something? It's H.G.Wells' one-volume masterpiece
called 'The Outline of History'. It's well worth any effort and expensive
to obtain (no pun intended), and something no history-buff can afford
to be without. True, it's a little dated (and flawed) at this late date,
but still *very* readable (and interesting). Ha! ... Good books never
go out of date; although they do often go out of print. :)
.
-- the bibliophilic one - cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. You also didn't answer my other question: What's 'UTFSE'?
x
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy /
] Subject Thread > Re: History [#4] / 7 March 07 /
] Post Title > Reason Older than Man
.
"History is Reason & Will in pursuit of Liberty!" -- textman ;>
.
> On March4 baal wrote: Human history is for the most part, unknown
> when one considers that human beings have existed for far longer
> than their history accounts. Ergo, the fraction of the written history
> that explains the last seven or so thousand years speaks nothing of
> the greater ages that too, shaped civilization (however you wish this
> word to be taken).
.
wurm say: Yeah, I'd say that human history is about a million or so years
long (approximately), since that's how long large-brained bipeds like us
have been around. Obviously it took a long time, and a great deal of effort
to get beyond the 'Fire&Stone-Culture' stage. The reason for this is that
fire and stone serves us quite well as nomadic hunters and gatherers.
Thus it took a very long time for our ancestors to realize that they could
just stop and grow their own plants and meat. But once they did stop and
dig in (as it were), the possibilities began to multiply almost immediately.
.
But the relative newness and novelty of written-history is not the
devastating critique you seem to think it is, baal. After all, it's not
like we have no information at all about that million year time-span. A
good part of that "pre-historic" human-history is, in fact, written into
the fossil-records. Stone tools and weapons tell their own amazing story
of cultural and technological development over the course of millions of
years. The forces that shape History (including Reason) are, in fact,
older than the human race itself. Reason existed BEFORE the first human-
being was even born?! It may seem a contradiction to many, but yes, it's
quite true. Fire was domesticated about five million years ago, they say,
by our remote primate ancestors (who were shorter, with less than half
the brain mass). I say that Reason existed even then, simply because it
takes smarts to constantly and consistently deal with something as finicky
as fire; and don't you be doubting it!
.
Thus History (as the story of Reason) is not just concerned with the
last 10,000 years. The story of History goes beyond writings and cities,
beyond the human race, and deep into the dark depths of primate
evolution, where thought and language and reason gained their first
tentative toehold within a raw and elemental world. But it was the move
from Fire & Stone to Cities & Writing that was the key turning point in
human-history, because they allowed for a new awareness of Time, and
a new "control" over time (in the peculiar sense that art and literature
are able to "transcend" time).
.
> Furthermore, history is largely a perception of events, and conjectural
> in some instances, and is itself neither shaped by few individuals nor
> by "the masses" as much as it is shaped by the interaction of the two
> groups, and reactions to technologies and environmental factors, or
> diseases, or some philosophic notion.
.
All of which is just another way of saying that History is a complex and
dynamic process that both feeds on change, and generates change. Our
knowledge of these changes (especially those in the distant past) is indeed
incomplete and (in some cases) seriously flawed; and in a few odd cases,
such as the history of the New Testament, deliberately and dishonorably
falsified! But even so, the main thing is to understand the dynamic itself.
What is the chief force that propels historical development and progress?
.
The First Law of History --> Historical progress and development always
accelerate according to the increase of these three closely related
factors: (1) population; (2) cultural complexity; and (3) the number and
quality of those few unique individuals who can effect dramatic changes
through their ideas and/or actions (great thinkers & charismatic leaders).
.
Thus the beginnings of the cities (some 8 to 10 thousand years ago) was
the key factor in allowing for the needed social diversity that also
depends directly upon at least a minimal amount of people fully equipped
with a developed language, traditions and customs, economy and trade,
technology and culture, etc. All these things were made possible by simply
giving up the way of the nomad, and settling down in one place. Having thus
gained the time and leisure needed to think about things, some men found
the opportunity to develop into unique individuals with new skills, ideas,
and knowledge. I suspect that knowledge is the chief catalytic ingredient
in this volatile cultural cocktail: For the "end of knowledge is power;
and ... the scope of all speculation is the performance of some action,
or thing to be done" (T.Hobbes).
.
> As far as the great men or women of ages past is concerned,
> they are but dust,
.
I agree that History is a passion for the living only; for the dead have
no interest in the past, present, or future. But the reality and finality
of Death is no excuse to forsake or belittle History, and even less reason
to deny the achievements and accomplishments of the great-ones.
.
> and greatness is but perception.
.
Greatness is NOT "but perception", it is an objective and tangible reality.
Even more, it is the hope and spirit of all life on this world. The great
ones are gone, but not forgotten. Often misunderstood or attacked (like
the black-pharaoh), but still having the potential to be understood, and
so gain even more influence upon people's minds.
.
> For who among them may be called the greatest?
.
As to which is the greatest: surely it matters not at all, for human
history is a collaborative process that requires the participation of all
the actors. Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, etc, are all of
them essential and indispensable elements in the same historical process.
.
> There are no great ones because time and unforeseen circumstances
> betided them all.
.
And that is why the wise men of ancient times invented writing and
literature: so that the mind-of-man may transcend / defeat / surpass
even Time & Death! Thus the great ones live on (with our gratitude) in
the collective memory and consciousness of the ever-current generation.
.
> Cheers.
.
Cheers, you say? Yeah, you're just a regular cheerful dude, eh baal? :)
Actually, I don't think that your cynical attitude toward History (and her
heroes) is much justified. It's true that our deepest nature is predatory
(and counter-productive when taken to extremes), and may even cause
us to destroy ourselves (by way of consuming the entire planet), but
there's still a *small* chance that we may bring things under control
(ie. our greed-based economy, and the runaway population growth) ...
IF we can just "Give Reason a Chance" !
.
The way I see it, the biggest problem/challenge that our current global-
civilization faces is that while we have gained tremendous control over
the external-world, we have almost zero control over the internal-world.
We can change our house, but we can't seem to change ourselves! ...
It is a lack of will combined with a serious (and looking to be terminal)
case of 'Constipation of the Imagination'. In the end, most human beings
are little better than rats: eat, survive, breed. Being thus satisfied with
"eat-survive-breed" will surely be the death of us all ...
.
But considering how far we have come in such a short time, and the
relative youth of our species, we're of a mind to suggest that homo-
sapiens *may* have a bright future as a race, *IF* we can just get
over this current nasty-hump of mass-stupidity, and put the 'sapiens'
back into the 'homo'! :D
.
-- the almost sappy one - cybrwurm ;>
x