Nature of "truth?"

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Like I said before, history/archeology can only tell about the event itself. The politics of history (the rights and wrongs) are all in the eye of the beholder. Take the example of the Boston Massacre. We know what the event was: British police battling with angry colonists, but who was "at fault" (for lack of a better term)? Were the colonists killed in cold blood? Or was it self defense? You're going to here both from the respective sides.

Back to the three axioms: history can define existence, but identity and consciousness are relative. Like Pa'li said, history is usual told from the PoV of the victor. That's why I like Howard Zinn, because he tells the other side of history, from the PoV of the downtrodden, and it is usually a completely different story.

"Understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth."

Just because the truth is difficult to find doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Tsyal Makto]

But isn't history all about interpretation? How can there be an absolute truth in a subject which is so subjective? You can try to pin something somewhere in the middle, but there's still the chance that that can be wildly separate from the "truth." Again, compare the common schoolbook to the works of Zinn or Chomsky.

No side is 100% right, but no side is 100% wrong either. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

But isn't history all about interpretation? How can there be an absolute truth in a subject which is so subjective? You can try to pin something somewhere in the middle, but there's still the chance that that can be wildly separate from the "truth." Again, compare the common schoolbook to the works of Zinn or Chomsky.

No side is 100% right, but no side is 100% wrong either. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

There is a truth, because it happened. There are opinions and bias, but there is still an underlying truth.

[Tsyal Makto]

The event itself IS the truth. The event, in existence, is the objective truth (the "what," "where," "who," "when," and "how", the definers of existence). However, the "why" (the most important question, and the underlying definer of identity and consciousness), is subjective. History does mean different things to different factions.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

The event itself IS the truth. The event, in existence, is the objective truth (the "what," "where," "who," "when," and "how"). However, the "why" (the most important question, and the underlying definer of identity and consciousness), is subjective. History does mean different things to different factions.

How is why subjective? "Franz Ferdinand wanted this to happen" is not subjective. "Hitler wanted this, but the generals wanted that..." isn't subjective.

[Tsyal Makto]

I'd classify those more as "what" statements. The real "why" lies in what was going through their minds at the time, their motives, not simply their actions or wants. Why did they want what they wanted? Why did they do what they did? Those are things that people have different interpretations of.

[Pa'li Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Saying something isn't valid because knowledge improves is fallacious - it may make the old understanding invalid, certainly, but not the method of determination.

That's what I meant, the old understanding is invalid because of new knowledge and I used the old example of the historian writing an incomplete history of america to illustrate my point of historians becoming invalid..Who are you to say that anyone who criticises the method of determination is fallacious though?

Tsyal I agree, how can you replicate an event in the past when you don't know the speeches, the attitudes of the soldiers and the like?

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Pa'li Makto

That's what I meant, the old understanding is invalid because of new knowledge and I used the old example of the historian writing an incomplete history of america to illustrate my point of historians becoming invalid..Who are you to say that anyone who criticises the method of determination is fallacious though?

Because to criticize the method, you must use it. After all, science is just an extended set of "Because X and Y, it is likely Z. If Z, then A. A?"

Trying to criticize logical thinking involves just substituting in a particular X and Y for the Z, "logic isn't accurate", which is rather self-defeating.

Tsyal I agree, how can you replicate an event in the past when you don't know the speeches, the attitudes of the soldiers and the like?

They had attitudes and the speeches happened, though, didn't they?

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I'd classify those more as "what" statements. The real "why" lies in what was going through their minds at the time, their motives, not simply their actions or wants. Why did they want what they wanted? Why did they do what they did? Those are things that people have different interpretations of.

For lack of data. It's a semi-valid argument to say that we can't tell why they wanted they did, but that's a very different thing to say there isn't an actual reason they wanted what they wanted.

Peoples' thoughts are just as much events as their actions, they're just far harder to evidence.

[Tsyal Makto]

Possibly. I'm not questioning the thought itself is possibly objective (on face value, at least), as is the act of thinking itself, but that still doesn't negate the need for putting existential value on this thought, and in many cases, interpretation still, and that is different from the perspective of who is involved: the thinker, those who will face the consequences of their thoughts and actions, and those studying history. Again, take the example of a standard US history book vs the works of Howard Zinn. They are both examining the same events, but have given the events completely different existential value.

Allow me to reiterate my opinion: Events in history in physicality are objective, however, putting existential values on these events are relative, as is placing value on the higher axioms.

They might have reason, but why? Even further, how does their existential worldview, their foundation values, effect that decision? How we identify and give value to the world (our existential "why's") effects our actions.

Maybe that makes my view clearer, or maybe more confusing. I have a complex $0.02. So I'm sorry, but that's about as clear as I can make it.

[Pa'li Makto]

One thing about history. It only becomes history when somebody writes about it.. They Piece sources together to form a picture.. That is subjective in itself because one: Someone writes it and 2: The writer selects certain sources to back up their argument of what they believed happened.

[Human No More]

No event in history has ever been covered from a single point of view.

[Pa'li Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

No event in history has ever been covered from a single point of view.

Are you sure about that? Do you wish to explain this further?

There have been events in history that have been covered by only one viewpoint because of limitations of reading and writing by other sides and the lack of sources. Look at the Roman invasion of Britain of 43AD, the Britons and Celts only spread news and history orally so all we have to refer to is the Roman version of what happened. The Saxons arrived in 400AD and Vikings came to Britain hundreds of years after in 793 AD
We can only the Roman Invasion into Britain through Roman records.

Also there are lots of events in ancient history that have events recorded by one view, such as the defiling of Pharaoh Akhenaten's monuments by Horemheb.We only see Horemheb's view of what happened because he represented the disgruntled Egyptian public.

Of course, when we turn to modern history we have a glut of sources from many sides of the world.

[Human No More]

So multiple sides had accounts, but only one survived in anywhere near as much quantity or quality (fragments of the other sides did, but in many cases became legend). You're confusing what's obvious with what was recorded.

[Pa'li Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

So multiple sides had accounts, but only one survived in anywhere near as much quantity or quality (fragments of the other sides did, but in many cases became legend). You're confusing what's obvious with what was recorded.

Not really, I'm showing that in events, one side is preferred and due to the lack of evidence supporting other sides, one side becomes the only side that we have to reference an event from.
History is like that.

[Moco Loco]

I guess it also depends on how long ago whatever event happened. If it was a very long time ago, other perspectives may be accepted more easily because evidence is all around scarce, but if the event was more recent, one perspective is more likely to have loads more evidence than another.