"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
don't be fooled with famous mottos that sound good on paper, and least live it once first.
The social sciences field knows as ''History'' or ''Historical studies'' does not represent ''what happened'' but rather explores the points of view of different authors in their attempts to record history itself.
We will never know exactly what happened because we can't go back in time (although pictures and videos are fairly consistent evidence, until the computer generation imaging at least).
These books are so important and have so much cultural value, it would honestly be the dumbest thing to burn any book at all.
what's the point of learning history if you don't know what happened? and unless these authors were from that era, and can prove it with at least a snap shot of them. then who cares what they think? why care about what they want history to be?
the whole computer generating thing is a good point. the only thing I can think is that we would eventually have to have computer programs that can tell whats a real photo or video and what's not.
Hypothetically, if all the history books were destroyed and forgotten (while it's a given, some of the books are full of fabrications, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water), the next generation would be oblivious of what happened centuries ago...oblivious of historical feats...just lost..
comparing a baby to a book is not a fair comparison. there are also other books to read in case you eye scooped every history book on the shelf, science books are more helpful than history to me. besides, new history books will be much more reliable with all the video and photos to help back them up, rather than all the old history books.
This is a fair point. I remember reading that Heraclitus, due to his bias, talked about the Persians as if they were savages and brutes. This of course was due to his bias. The fact that history is so subjective and prone to bias suggests that maybe it is indeed not reliable.
However, I don't know if we should burn books. Some information of the past is better than no information. Thus the best option might be to simply acknowledge the bias and possible inaccuracy of history rather than to destroy it.
I didn't say ALL books. this is just about history books before the modern age.
what past information is better than none at all? just give one example.
what I am ultimately saying is we should go with the most reliable source
Don't you think you could remove the word 'history' and insert 'theology'? Or 'philosophy'? 'Art'? How about 'Science'? Where is the line that separates things that stop the world turning from those that don't? There is no line, this point of view is a fallacy. No-one claimed ignorance of history would stop the world turning, even metaphorically. Knowledge is where you find it. If you don't think there's knowledge in history, then ignore it. But that's NOT what you're arguing here. You're arguing that we should keep OTHERS ignorant of history. And have offered not the least justification for this, apart from a mistaken belief that video is more accurate, and that written history can be manipulated, and therefore is of no use.
That we can't live without? Nothing, from the top of my head, and assuming a tight definition of ancient history. Which has no relationship with the OP, nor relevance with the topic at hand, to be honest.
Like I said, feel free to keep yourself ignorant of history, and learn nothing from those that came before. I have no issue with that at all. My issue is that you're suggesting to keep others ignorant, without any justification.
Why, by the way, have you now tweaked your comments to relate to 'ancient history'? That hadn't been your take until now.
I would say just keep calling it history books.
now I don't believe in keeping ignorance alive in people. but to me it's ignorant to care about a history that has not even one case in point. from my experience, I see a lot of adults who know all kinds of 100% useless ancient history. then they don't know how to use a gas pump for their car? they don't know all the rules of driving in traffic but know history from 1000 years ago much more?
there's tons and TONS of things you could learn other than ancient history with no solid proof. you could read and learn how to...
I don't mind hearing history, I never assume that what I am hearing is true or false. I'm happy if I can hear different views of the matter and make my own determinations with regard to what I will believe is true.
that's not how society works for the most part, even if you do.
some people don't wanna hear about history if it makes other people hate or resent.
It's not a statistic but an estimate. I doubt any study has been done to find the proportion of 'video-era' history compared to the opposite, but considering video evidence would be pretty scant before WWII I think the estimate would be fairly accurate.
Your arguments so far have been destroyed, especially your main argument that people are better off completely ignorant about the past...you haven't challenged the idea that people without any knowledge would be far more susceptible to propaganda than those who have some. You were also wrong in saying that people wouldn't miss history if it was gone, the existence and popularity of history itself is proof of that.
Of course it is not good enough for you, you've already made up your mind on the matter...why else would you have come to the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence for the Romans in the first place? Let's face it, your reasons for thinking this are not the result of actual research or even consideration, but of cynicism. An attitude of automatic, baseless distrust of sources is every bit as closed minded as someone who trusts sources without question.
Also, historians don't simply look for evidence from anyone. There is evidence considered to be reliable and evidence that is not, this is for the historian to decide. The important point to make is that evidence is never considered in isolation but in context, in context of what we already know of the period, what we know of the writer (if it is written), and of the other evidence. If a piece of evidence genuinely exists in isolation then there is little that be taken from it with reliability.
Another point that should be made is that history isn't simply a study of who won which battle, who gained power or who achieved great things, there are many, many areas of history which aren't even that susceptible to bias and are quite mundane...for example the day-to-day workings of government (not politics), different aspects of social history that look into everyday life (rites of passage, education, the role of women, slavery etc.), also aspects of economic history and the history of art, thought and science.
you doubt there has been that kind of study? or you don't want there to be?
you're twisting my words, I never said make everyone completely ignorant. I am about people learning things that have more a reliable source. and if my argument was destroyed then this thread would be dead by now, and you wouldn't have come back as often or least not so soon.
you also can not miss a certain part of history if you never heard anything about it at all, and like I said, future generations would be there at that point.
you have plenty of history from world war 2 to learn off and educate yourself to an upstanding citizen.
until society has learned one single thing from ancient history and is acting on what they have learned, then I might start to agree with you.
as far as I can see, there is not one piece of ancient history we need or use. not even one example.
but besides history, there are other things to learn from books you can learn that are helpful and useful. like...
how to work on your car.
how to do your own home repairs.
how to play a music instrument.
how to do landscaping.
how to use a computer.
how street lights and traffic laws work.
science books.
biography books, etc.
even if fabricated to a degree with some of these book, at least we know it's not all fabricated, and it can be proved with many books that have video today, etc.
