Author Topic: History is a threat to mysticism  (Read 8573 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Illusive Man

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 869
  • Gender: Male
  • Saw the ME3 endings, got turned into a husk. :(-
History is a threat to mysticism
« on: February 17, 2013, 09:27:54 pm »
The mysterious, requires something to be unexplainable. A mystery if you will :wink:. History is a threat because the questions of: ‘Who?’, What?, ‘When?’, ‘Where?’, ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’ are asked. When used to inquire and explain the mysterious is no longer unexplainable and undocumentable.


The shit quoted below is an example of what happens when the mysterious and/or religion mixes with history. Please note that a history of religion is not precluded, the mixing of a theological framework with history should be. Both of the below are on page 5 of Williams, R. C. (2007). The Historian's Toolbox: A Student's Guide To The Theory And Craft Of History (2nd ed.). Armonk, New York, United States of America: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. This is "required reading" in colleges and universities!


Quote
The past is intimately connected with time, a mysterious entity that we measure metaphorically in terms of space (a long or short time). Early on, people developed calendars to help them keep track of past, present, and future time. Calendars are based on the motions of the natural world (sun, moon, stars, earth) and on a beginning of time (birth of a hero, founding of a religion or a nation, creation of the world, ect.). They contain both cyclic (hours, days, weeks, months, years) and linear (sequential years) elements.
YOU FOOL! Labeling time as mysterious then stating an empirical means of measuring it is a contradiction!

Quote
For human history involves historians and their human subjects in our common fate, that is, in what the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) called the “crooked timber of humanity.” Unlike scientists, historians resemble the objects of their all too human study of the past. We do not need to get bent out of shape by the fact that we are all crooked timber. We understand others in the past because they too, like us, were human beings. We can empathize with their triumphs and tragedies. We can imagine what we might have done in their situation.
  • YOU DOUBLE FOOL! The scientists within the scientific fields of psychology, sociology and biology resemble and study human beings!
  • YOU TRIPLE FOOL! The field of history does not hold a monopoly on empathy!
  • YOU QUADRUPLE FOOL! You do not understand a person in the past because you cannot experience the socio-cultural aspects of the past! Sources are relied upon for context and content!
Despite knowing about indoctrination I thought it was a good idea to put a human Reaper near my office. Now I am a sentient husk :(.

*RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRR* *SCREECH* *smokes*


Offline Material Defender

  • Food Scientist in Space
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 959
  • Gender: Male
  • Pilot of the Pyro-GX
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2013, 10:23:18 pm »
Not sure what this has to do with history and mysticism, but the book is dumb for saying stuff like that. I couldn't imagine what motivated religious wars in the past.
The material needs a defender more than the spiritual. If there is a higher power, it can defend itself from the material. Thus denotes 'higher power'.

"Not to know is bad. Not to want to know is worse. Not to hope is unthinkable. Not to care is unforgivable." -Nigerian Saying

Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2013, 02:54:19 pm »
Quote
YOU QUADRUPLE FOOL! You do not understand a person in the past because you cannot experience the socio-cultural aspects of the past! Sources are relied upon for context and content!

Well, no.  But through the study of history you can gain greater understanding of what drove people in the past, a lot of what would motivate them may not motivate people in the modern world, but you may see similarities between how people then reacted to an event and how people in the modern world react to a similar situation.  But people studying the past inevitably study the people in the past, so I'd say it's wrong to say that only scientists in the fields of psychology, biology and sociology study human being - one that frequently comes up in lectures on events such as the crusades is "Would we do this again?" and while most people would say no, one of my lecturers was quick to point out that people were quick to volunteer in WWI and showed a spirit similar to that was shown at the start of the First Crusade.

I'd also point out that Williams' isn't claiming that the study of history gives one the monopoly on empathy, although there will be empathy amongst those studying, for example if you study an event like, for example, the sinking of the RMS Titanic, then you certainly feel a lot of sympathy for those involved.  That doesn't mean you have a monopoly on empathy, but (from my own point of view) you'd need a heart of stone not to feel moved by the stories.

One other thing - you say that this book is required reading at many colleges and universities.  Which ones?  I've studied history at the Aberdeen University, Stirling University and am now doing a history course with the Open University, so far this book hasn't come up.  What does come up, time and time again, is the need to be analytical of sources and the need to check the veracity of sources, but I've yet to see this book anywhere in my (exhaustive) reading lists.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline The Illusive Man

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 869
  • Gender: Male
  • Saw the ME3 endings, got turned into a husk. :(-
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2013, 04:21:46 pm »
Quote
YOU QUADRUPLE FOOL! You do not understand a person in the past because you cannot experience the socio-cultural aspects of the past! Sources are relied upon for context and content!

Well, no.  But through the study of history you can gain greater understanding of what drove people in the past, a lot of what would motivate them may not motivate people in the modern world, but you may see similarities between how people then reacted to an event and how people in the modern world react to a similar situation.
Emphasize do not sympathize. Even primary sources only provide a subjective account of history. As a historian or psychologist one MUST remain objective otherwise bias sets in. This is much easier said than done.


I'd also point out that Williams' isn't claiming that the study of history gives one the monopoly on empathy, although there will be empathy amongst those studying, for example if you study an event like, for example, the sinking of the RMS Titanic, then you certainly feel a lot of sympathy for those involved.  That doesn't mean you have a monopoly on empathy, but (from my own point of view) you'd need a heart of stone not to feel moved by the stories.
Empathy and sympathy are not interchangeable.


One other thing - you say that this book is required reading at many colleges and universities.  Which ones?  I've studied history at the Aberdeen University, Stirling University and am now doing a history course with the Open University, so far this book hasn't come up.  What does come up, time and time again, is the need to be analytical of sources and the need to check the veracity of sources, but I've yet to see this book anywhere in my (exhaustive) reading lists.
This book is for 600 level classes in: James Madison Universities, Concordia Colleges, Villanova Universities, Davidson Colleges, University of Texas, California State University, University of Michigan, University of Oregon and others.
Despite knowing about indoctrination I thought it was a good idea to put a human Reaper near my office. Now I am a sentient husk :(.

*RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRR* *SCREECH* *smokes*


Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2013, 05:08:23 pm »
Quote
YOU QUADRUPLE FOOL! You do not understand a person in the past because you cannot experience the socio-cultural aspects of the past! Sources are relied upon for context and content!

Well, no.  But through the study of history you can gain greater understanding of what drove people in the past, a lot of what would motivate them may not motivate people in the modern world, but you may see similarities between how people then reacted to an event and how people in the modern world react to a similar situation.
Emphasize do not sympathize. Even primary sources only provide a subjective account of history. As a historian or psychologist one MUST remain objective otherwise bias sets in. This is much easier said than done.


I'd also point out that Williams' isn't claiming that the study of history gives one the monopoly on empathy, although there will be empathy amongst those studying, for example if you study an event like, for example, the sinking of the RMS Titanic, then you certainly feel a lot of sympathy for those involved.  That doesn't mean you have a monopoly on empathy, but (from my own point of view) you'd need a heart of stone not to feel moved by the stories.
Empathy and sympathy are not interchangeable.


One other thing - you say that this book is required reading at many colleges and universities.  Which ones?  I've studied history at the Aberdeen University, Stirling University and am now doing a history course with the Open University, so far this book hasn't come up.  What does come up, time and time again, is the need to be analytical of sources and the need to check the veracity of sources, but I've yet to see this book anywhere in my (exhaustive) reading lists.
This book is for 600 level classes in: James Madison Universities, Concordia Colleges, Villanova Universities, Davidson Colleges, University of Texas, California State University, University of Michigan, University of Oregon and others.


Actually, no.  Empathy and sympathy may be different, but there's nothing wrong with empathising with someone going through a bad situation, be it a deckhand on the Titanic, the last stand of the Canmores or someone on the news.  That doesn't make you bad at history, indeed you can imagine how you would feel in a similar situation, as you can empathise for those who survived the Titanic or the men who fought against Malcolm Canmore.  It is easy to have sympathy for both and this can lead to greater understanding of what motivated them.

Quote
This book is for 600 level classes in: James Madison Universities, Concordia Colleges, Villanova Universities, Davidson Colleges, University of Texas, California State University, University of Michigan, University of Oregon and others.

Good for them.  I haven't encountered it here.  As anyone studying history knows, you have to be critical.  That means being critical of that book, whether you accept it or not.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline The Illusive Man

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 869
  • Gender: Male
  • Saw the ME3 endings, got turned into a husk. :(-
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2013, 08:05:23 pm »
Actually, no.  Empathy and sympathy may be different, but there's nothing wrong with empathising with someone going through a bad situation, be it a deckhand on the Titanic, the last stand of the Canmores or someone on the news.  That doesn't make you bad at history, indeed you can imagine how you would feel in a similar situation, as you can empathise for those who survived the Titanic or the men who fought against Malcolm Canmore.  It is easy to have sympathy for both and this can lead to greater understanding of what motivated them.
Empathy is good for History and Psychology, sympathy is not. You are inherently NOT the person or part of the event (except for modern history) you are researching. The moment you self-insert is the moment you are writing fan-fiction instead of research.


Good for them.  I haven't encountered it here.  As anyone studying history knows, you have to be critical.  That means being critical of that book, whether you accept it or not.
I am glad that this obvious, it needs to be obvious for everyone else in the field.
Despite knowing about indoctrination I thought it was a good idea to put a human Reaper near my office. Now I am a sentient husk :(.

*RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRR* *SCREECH* *smokes*


Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2013, 08:29:06 pm »
Actually, no.  Empathy and sympathy may be different, but there's nothing wrong with empathising with someone going through a bad situation, be it a deckhand on the Titanic, the last stand of the Canmores or someone on the news.  That doesn't make you bad at history, indeed you can imagine how you would feel in a similar situation, as you can empathise for those who survived the Titanic or the men who fought against Malcolm Canmore.  It is easy to have sympathy for both and this can lead to greater understanding of what motivated them.
Empathy is good for History and Psychology, sympathy is not. You are inherently NOT the person or part of the event (except for modern history) you are researching. The moment you self-insert is the moment you are writing fan-fiction instead of research.

Wait, what? So feeling sympathy for another person automatically means that you can no longer be objective? Bullshit. You can still remain objective even if you have an emotional attachment (feelings of sympathy or hatred for example) and it is called being a professional.

If you study the great atrocities and disasters of the past (like the holocaust or holodomor) most human beings will be affected by the stories, but this does not mean that they cannot remain neutral (rather than writing "fanfiction.")
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 01:45:21 am by askold »
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2013, 01:33:47 am »
This sort of blather actually gives historians a bad rap. By saying that "unlike scientists (insert touchy feely shite here)" they are saying "unlike science-history is touchy, feely completely irrelevant shite"!

Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2013, 08:33:11 am »
This sort of blather actually gives historians a bad rap. By saying that "unlike scientists (insert touchy feely shite here)" they are saying "unlike science-history is touchy, feely completely irrelevant shite"!

Well I don't feel it's irrelevant, far too relevant if you ask me.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2013, 04:00:27 pm »
Of course it's relevant, if it's portrayed as somehow weaker and less relevant than the sciences then that to me does the entire academic discipline a disservice!

Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2013, 04:59:24 pm »
Of course it's relevant, if it's portrayed as somehow weaker and less relevant than the sciences then that to me does the entire academic discipline a disservice!

Ah sorry, misunderstood you.

And I totally agree with you.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline rookie

  • Miscreant, petty criminal, and all around nice guy
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Gender: Male
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2013, 09:17:25 pm »
Actually, no.  Empathy and sympathy may be different, but there's nothing wrong with empathising with someone going through a bad situation, be it a deckhand on the Titanic, the last stand of the Canmores or someone on the news.  That doesn't make you bad at history, indeed you can imagine how you would feel in a similar situation, as you can empathise for those who survived the Titanic or the men who fought against Malcolm Canmore.  It is easy to have sympathy for both and this can lead to greater understanding of what motivated them.
Empathy is good for History and Psychology, sympathy is not. You are inherently NOT the person or part of the event (except for modern history) you are researching. The moment you self-insert is the moment you are writing fan-fiction instead of research.

That looks like some utter crap there. Why can't a person sympathize with someone in a historical situation yet leave it out of professional works? Almost compartmentalize?
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542
I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2013, 08:14:26 am »
Actually, no.  Empathy and sympathy may be different, but there's nothing wrong with empathising with someone going through a bad situation, be it a deckhand on the Titanic, the last stand of the Canmores or someone on the news.  That doesn't make you bad at history, indeed you can imagine how you would feel in a similar situation, as you can empathise for those who survived the Titanic or the men who fought against Malcolm Canmore.  It is easy to have sympathy for both and this can lead to greater understanding of what motivated them.
Empathy is good for History and Psychology, sympathy is not. You are inherently NOT the person or part of the event (except for modern history) you are researching. The moment you self-insert is the moment you are writing fan-fiction instead of research.

That looks like some utter crap there. Why can't a person sympathize with someone in a historical situation yet leave it out of professional works? Almost compartmentalize?

Absolutely, I can sympathise with the poor sods in the trenches of World War One (regardless of which side they're on), equally I can feel admiration for men such as Kamal Ataturk rallying his men when the allies were coming up the beaches at Gallipoli, or the Australian troops insisting on being the Honour Guard for the Red Baron at his funeral.  But that doesn't mean that I can't also see it objectively.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline The Illusive Man

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 869
  • Gender: Male
  • Saw the ME3 endings, got turned into a husk. :(-
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2013, 01:55:45 am »
Wait, what? So feeling sympathy for another person automatically means that you can no longer be objective? Bullshit. You can still remain objective even if you have an emotional attachment (feelings of sympathy or hatred for example) and it is called being a professional.

If you study the great atrocities and disasters of the past (like the holocaust or holodomor) most human beings will be affected by the stories, but this does not mean that they cannot remain neutral (rather than writing "fanfiction.")
Absolutely, I can sympathise with the poor sods in the trenches of World War One (regardless of which side they're on), equally I can feel admiration for men such as Kamal Ataturk rallying his men when the allies were coming up the beaches at Gallipoli, or the Australian troops insisting on being the Honour Guard for the Red Baron at his funeral.  But that doesn't mean that I can't also see it objectively.
That looks like some utter crap there. Why can't a person sympathize with someone in a historical situation yet leave it out of professional works? Almost compartmentalize?

Please stop confounding empathy with sympathy, they are not the same! Sympathy implies agreement and susceptibility while empathy does not. Transference, counter-Transference, ect exemplifies the difference and dangers of sympathy. You can not be professional if you are not objective, especially in the field of psychology.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 02:02:13 am by The Illusive Man »
Despite knowing about indoctrination I thought it was a good idea to put a human Reaper near my office. Now I am a sentient husk :(.

*RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRR* *SCREECH* *smokes*


Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: History is a threat to mysticism
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2013, 09:07:04 am »
Wait, what? So feeling sympathy for another person automatically means that you can no longer be objective? Bullshit. You can still remain objective even if you have an emotional attachment (feelings of sympathy or hatred for example) and it is called being a professional.

If you study the great atrocities and disasters of the past (like the holocaust or holodomor) most human beings will be affected by the stories, but this does not mean that they cannot remain neutral (rather than writing "fanfiction.")
Absolutely, I can sympathise with the poor sods in the trenches of World War One (regardless of which side they're on), equally I can feel admiration for men such as Kamal Ataturk rallying his men when the allies were coming up the beaches at Gallipoli, or the Australian troops insisting on being the Honour Guard for the Red Baron at his funeral.  But that doesn't mean that I can't also see it objectively.
That looks like some utter crap there. Why can't a person sympathize with someone in a historical situation yet leave it out of professional works? Almost compartmentalize?

Please stop confounding empathy with sympathy, they are not the same! Sympathy implies agreement and susceptibility while empathy does not. Transference, counter-Transference, ect exemplifies the difference and dangers of sympathy. You can not be professional if you are not objective, especially in the field of psychology.

I have already pointed out that I am objective.  That does not mean that I cannot feel sympathy for the poor sod on the ground or empathy for the situation as a whole.  Just because that doesn't work for you, don't be so fucking arrogant as to assume everyone else has to be the same.

And two other things:  I couldn't give a flying fuck about the field of psychology, you started this by talking about History.  I'm not studying, nor do I want to study, psychology, so I really couldn't care less about it.  And as you seem to want to be so pedantic with everyone on this board, I feel I should point out that you spell the shortened version of 'etcetera' as 'etc', not 'ect'.  Got that?
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!