History truly is bunk.
Nobody has any goddamn clue as to what is happening.
History, economics, sociology... for every expert who has dedicated his life to promote one point of view within these fields, there is another with equally convincing evidence that has a contradictory one.
Either there is no rational trend in history and you should use your intuition for all political decisions, or you need to have the resilience to keep trying to find the one objective truth behind everything humanity related.
So I have a question for you, how convinced are you at your own interpretations of how the world functions, and how many years did it take to come to that interpretation?
>>1234738
I agree with most of what you said.
>>1234738
If what you are saying is correct, that historians have no knowledge, then you are also saying that a person would gain no insight into the Pelopennesian war if he read Thucydides, for example.
Do you believe this is the case?
>>1234738
I'm not convinced at all. My interpretations have changed a lot since I started studying history.
>>1234852
He would certainly gain insight to it, and some general facts are easy to prove, but they are superficial and do not do justice to the huge complexity of history. I'm not going to force this analogy too far, but it is like studying the motion of a single molecule of water in a river. It's nothing to do with historians being bad, but history being incredibly difficult and for now uncertain.
dumb gorillaposter
Anyways,
> Nobody has any goddamn clue as to what is happening ... History, economics, sociology... for every expert who has dedicated his life to promote one point of view within these fields, there is another with equally convincing evidence that has a contradictory one.
I think part of my answer is in your question, in that, historians, economists, sociologists and etc. are necessarily by nature of human inquiry only able to point out temporal patterns, which is reflected in their theories.
Though, I think the error is believing there is some sort of long-term pattern,
versus contained instances of such-and-such occurrence.
As I am forced to experience the world through my own perceptions, I have been trying my best to live without (at least too much) dogma. I'm not really concerned about truth, discovery, enlightenment or anything such as that,
as much as wanting a certain depth and clarity of thought.
As for conceptions of the world functions, I don't think I'll comment because I don't think I know enough yet, and some of my notions have changed a bit recently, though I've always kind of worked that way.
