It may be nitpicking, but for me, as long as you accept that your ideas of evil and Good are subjective to you personally, we are in agreement. I find things evil and wrong, but I would never be presumptuous enough to say its objectively truthful, its not. Its painted by the veil of my experiences, everyone is. As long as you accept that, its all good.
Bad People Don't Exist
- Thread starter Poetic Justice
- Start date
It may be nitpicking, but for me, as long as you accept that your ideas of evil and Good are subjective to you personally, we are in agreement. I find things evil and wrong, but I would never be presumptuous enough to say its objectively truthful, its not. Its painted by the veil of my experiences, everyone is. As long as you accept that, its all good.
No. History is based on combing through evidence to determine the most probable account of what happened. He thought he was brilliant, turns out he wasn't. Lol.
I think its counter-intuitive to say he wasnt brilliant considering what he did actually accomplish. Can you name any other world leaders who had the same shit on their plate and lead their people as far as that?The German Depression was 100X worse than the rest of the world because of the reparations for WW1 they were forced to repay. And I think you are too idealistic in your view on history.
All history is biased.
I disagree. My view on history has been well thought out. Most of the community of professional historians agree with me and are unmoved by postmodern relativists.
If its so well thought out why are there so many conflicting versions of it? Or are they all right or is there 1 right one?I disagree.
Historiography. There can be multiple different accounts on one event but a historian's job is to determine the most probable and reliable account of what happened.
There is a method to how it is done. You have multiple historians who often have direct access to the things they are investigating. Each piece of evidence is viewed differently according to what type of source it is and they reconstruct it based on evidence and probability. The professional historian isn't free to just interpret whatever he wants.
And yet much of history is just exactly that, interpretation. How do you square the fact that the Chinese and Japanese have different versions of history based on the exact same events? And the Americans an even more different version, whos right?
Nooo it is not. Most historical facts speak for themselves, there isn't much room for the historian can mess with it too much. Anywhere else you have the peer review process. There is junk history out there, sure. Especially in books and on the net. Lol
Historical facts are only as good as the stuff they're written on. Was there an unbiased American journalist sitting around in China when the Japanese invaded Nanking taking notes on how many died? Because the Japanese had 1 figure for that, and the Chinese another. Who is right?
It would be the historian's job to uncover the most accurate answer from both accounts, and other evidence. IDK, who is right?
So in other words the historian would have to interpret the data and pose his version of what is right. We come full circle, what if he has a horse in the race? And since all human beings are biased, we can safely conclude that there will be some level of bias in it, since history is not just facts and numbers, its a narrative of multiple events seen from different viewpoints. Which leads me to my original statement, history is written by the winners.It would be the historian's job to uncover the most accurate answer from both accounts, and other evidence. IDK, who is right?
You came full circle. I already said that historians sift through multiple accounts of the same event and determine the most accurate answers based on evidence (primary and secondary sources) and probability and you wanted to know who had the correct numbers, Japan or China? Well, take Historian Craft, sift through the evidence, determine probability yourself. Have it peer reviewed by multiple other professional historians and let me know what you determine.
You came full circle. I already said that historians sift through multiple accounts of the same event and determine the most accurate answers based on evidence (primary and secondary sources) and probability and you wanted to know who had the correct numbers, Japan or China? Well, take Historian Craft, sift through the evidence, determine probability yourself. Have it peer reviewed by multiple other professional historians and let me know what you determine.
I determine that its often based on hunches and opinions as opposed to concrete facts which may not exist due to the passage of time and that history is often up to interpretation.
History is like a dream. We can learn nothing from the past. At least historians know the difference between what is made up or invented and historical fact which requires research or they'd never get out of their chairs to do any.