In our final post on history we ask ourselves a final question. If it is the case that a human being can be wrong about objective truth and therefore we cannot be sure of our perception of truth, then it must also be true that a society can err on the subject as well.
This is true to some extent. In every society, like in every person, we find both good and bad. We find things to admire about a culture and things to abhor.
The problem of this though is that like a person a society is not the source of truth. A thing is true regardless of our perception. And as such it is not the case that truth is determined by our perception, but our quality is perceived by how well we conform to the truth.
Thus truth stands beyond us. It exists outside our perception and independent of us. We are not the that which determines truth. In fact truth determines us in some sense.
In order to see this truth we must look beyond ourselves. We must focus our attention beyond ourselves and look above us to see. We must look beyond even our homes and those around us.
We must look at that which transcends people and societies. That which has seen empires rise and fall. That which throughout time has pointed to something above and beyond ourselves. That which points to the truth that lies beyond our senses. Something in this world but not of it.
That is why mankind needs the Church.
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
History IX
When we last discussed history we encountered the difficulty of discerning the truth that can be drawn from history. At every turn we seem to encounter difficulty. I then proposed that in order to understand history we must discern what our ancestors wanted to pass down to future generations.
To illustrate the pointed we must turn to those who until recently were revered as wise and great men. I refer to those we call the Founding Fathers. Those wise and noble statesmen who risked life, fortunes, and sacred honor to bring freedom to the colonies of North America.
There is no doubt in my mind that that those who founded this country are counted among the brightest statesmen that humanity has produced. One only needs to read the Federalist Papers to see that the intellect that was at their command was vast, and the ability to apply such intellect in the foundation of a nation are unique to history.
Yet they were also men. Human. Fallible. They did not design a perfect nation nor were they perfect themselves. They experienced weakness. They compromised on principles. There are even times when such principles were violated in the most horrific manner.
But until very recently they were honored for their greatness. The people of the nation recognized what made them great. The country that they founded espoused the notion that freedom was given to all men by nature of being human. And on July 4, 1776 they signed a document that meant their deaths had not the war turned in their favor.
Thus Americans were raised honoring those men who founded a nation. They were taught why the Founders were great and to look up to them. They were giants whose shoulders we stood on, and we have much to be thankful for because of them.
This is why sane societies have heroes. They embody what a society should strive for. We remember the best parts of them as we try to guide the future. We teach what was good and just in them, and try to impart those good aspects on the next generation.
But one may ask, is this not a whitewash of history? Should we not learn about their faults and failings to get the complete picture? While it is true that a more complete picture might be helpful to understand the greats we must be very careful and clear about what we are trying to accomplish. For looking at a man's faults may shed light on him it can also obscure him in darkness. We can lose sight of what the great man has to teach us if we preoccupy ourselves with his faults.
There is also one other point that must be made. The reason why the great ones are so is not because they were not weak but that they did great things. We are all weak and fallible. The greats had weaknesses as do we. But they were more than their weakness. They moved above and beyond their weakness to inspire others. We remember what makes them exceptional, not ordinary.
But now one final exception is raised. Just as a individual is fallible in what is right and should be passed on, so can a society err in what should be passed on to the next generation. How does one address this difficulty? We will attempt to answer this in our final examination of history.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
To illustrate the pointed we must turn to those who until recently were revered as wise and great men. I refer to those we call the Founding Fathers. Those wise and noble statesmen who risked life, fortunes, and sacred honor to bring freedom to the colonies of North America.
There is no doubt in my mind that that those who founded this country are counted among the brightest statesmen that humanity has produced. One only needs to read the Federalist Papers to see that the intellect that was at their command was vast, and the ability to apply such intellect in the foundation of a nation are unique to history.
Yet they were also men. Human. Fallible. They did not design a perfect nation nor were they perfect themselves. They experienced weakness. They compromised on principles. There are even times when such principles were violated in the most horrific manner.
But until very recently they were honored for their greatness. The people of the nation recognized what made them great. The country that they founded espoused the notion that freedom was given to all men by nature of being human. And on July 4, 1776 they signed a document that meant their deaths had not the war turned in their favor.
Thus Americans were raised honoring those men who founded a nation. They were taught why the Founders were great and to look up to them. They were giants whose shoulders we stood on, and we have much to be thankful for because of them.
This is why sane societies have heroes. They embody what a society should strive for. We remember the best parts of them as we try to guide the future. We teach what was good and just in them, and try to impart those good aspects on the next generation.
But one may ask, is this not a whitewash of history? Should we not learn about their faults and failings to get the complete picture? While it is true that a more complete picture might be helpful to understand the greats we must be very careful and clear about what we are trying to accomplish. For looking at a man's faults may shed light on him it can also obscure him in darkness. We can lose sight of what the great man has to teach us if we preoccupy ourselves with his faults.
There is also one other point that must be made. The reason why the great ones are so is not because they were not weak but that they did great things. We are all weak and fallible. The greats had weaknesses as do we. But they were more than their weakness. They moved above and beyond their weakness to inspire others. We remember what makes them exceptional, not ordinary.
But now one final exception is raised. Just as a individual is fallible in what is right and should be passed on, so can a society err in what should be passed on to the next generation. How does one address this difficulty? We will attempt to answer this in our final examination of history.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Thursday, August 4, 2011
History VIII
When we last talked about history we discussed the difficulty of drawing truth from history. That is, history presents to us a mired and confused picture if we simply look at the surface data. And yet all societies would seem to believe that there is something to history. That studying history is worth the time and effort.
In order to make sense of the mess we must turn back to legends. As we discussed before, stories and legends were used to communicate the truths that a culture wanted to impart to future generations. Woven into stories and legends were ideas about human nature, the heavens, and evil.
With this notion of legends we turn to history with a new focus. We are not so much interested in what the data is but what people choose to remember. When a person of particular import accomplishes something great or a notorious person does something horrible, that event or events define that person in the memory of the people. Other details, such as the mistress of the hero or the darling family of the serial killer, are shorn over time as society relates what was important and forgets what was not.
This principle is found in the purest form with the concept of the hero. A hero to a people embodies what that people aspires to. He serves as a guide to our children and a reminder to ourselves what it means to be human and what a human should strive for.
To me this example is readily apparent with how America remembers World War II. Countless movies have been made regarding the bravery and heroism of that generation's young men in defense of liberty and country. It is not surprising that we remember American efforts to vanquish the Nazi regime and liberate the Jews, rather than the Japanese campaign that ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But flesh and blood human beings, unlike the legends and superheroes, have moral weakness. No one is perfect, and thus even with the greatest of heroes we find weakness. While sometimes the truth in the historical hero's story is to overcome weakness, at times the weakness cannot be salvaged in such a fashion.
Does this mean that the venture to find heroes is hopeless? Or that we simply whitewash the past? This we will discuss next.
In order to make sense of the mess we must turn back to legends. As we discussed before, stories and legends were used to communicate the truths that a culture wanted to impart to future generations. Woven into stories and legends were ideas about human nature, the heavens, and evil.
With this notion of legends we turn to history with a new focus. We are not so much interested in what the data is but what people choose to remember. When a person of particular import accomplishes something great or a notorious person does something horrible, that event or events define that person in the memory of the people. Other details, such as the mistress of the hero or the darling family of the serial killer, are shorn over time as society relates what was important and forgets what was not.
This principle is found in the purest form with the concept of the hero. A hero to a people embodies what that people aspires to. He serves as a guide to our children and a reminder to ourselves what it means to be human and what a human should strive for.
To me this example is readily apparent with how America remembers World War II. Countless movies have been made regarding the bravery and heroism of that generation's young men in defense of liberty and country. It is not surprising that we remember American efforts to vanquish the Nazi regime and liberate the Jews, rather than the Japanese campaign that ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But flesh and blood human beings, unlike the legends and superheroes, have moral weakness. No one is perfect, and thus even with the greatest of heroes we find weakness. While sometimes the truth in the historical hero's story is to overcome weakness, at times the weakness cannot be salvaged in such a fashion.
Does this mean that the venture to find heroes is hopeless? Or that we simply whitewash the past? This we will discuss next.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
History VII
Our last outing with history concluded that history holds real value only to those who believe in the concept of transcendent truth. History can only teach us if there is something to be taught that can apply to us in the present time. Yet even if we grant this notion history presents an issue. If we were to look at history on its own merits it is not that obvious that history really has something to teach us.
An honest look at history reveals two problems which will be examined in turn. It is important to understand these issues before any honest assessment of history can be carried out.
The first problem is how one determines what is and what is not important when it comes to details. Given the wealth of data that accompanies historical research how does one come to the conclusion that a given detail, be it cultural, political, social, religious, artistic, or musical, is important enough to warrant our attention?
I will use an example of sorts. There is a version of history popular today about Galileo and the controversy surrounding his interactions with the Catholic Church. In particular, the following narrative is proposed. That Galileo stood for true science and the correct view that the earth revolved around the sun, and defied the religious authorities of the time who believed that the Ptolemaic model was correct that the earth was the center of the universe.
However, like all history, there is far more to the story than meets the eye. For example:
But this is not to simply throw cold water on the Galileo myth. The point is that one has to consider what data is relevant from history in order to draw meaning from it. And to be sure that we are not ignoring data that is relevant simply because it does not support our wishes.
The second issue stems from the first. History, like all human affairs, is fraught with contradictions. There are no heroes that were not weak in some sense. Nor did there exist so horrible a person that there wasn't some glimmer of that image of God. King David's lust motivated him to kill a man to steal the man's wife. Hitler was a painter. And then there are those such as George Jacques Danton , who worked so hard to hurl France into the nightmare of the Terror only to die in an attempt to undo what he had wrought.
How does one make sense of the morass of history? How does one obtain truth from the data that seems to contradict itself at every turn? Indeed with such data it would seem that those who argue against transcendent truth have the upper hand. If there is such a narrative to be had from history, it is the most contradictory and muddled story ever written.
But there is one nagging question. Why do we keep coming back to it? Why do we continue to say that history is important? Why is there a drive, even a need within us for those ties to the past? This we will examine next.
An honest look at history reveals two problems which will be examined in turn. It is important to understand these issues before any honest assessment of history can be carried out.
The first problem is how one determines what is and what is not important when it comes to details. Given the wealth of data that accompanies historical research how does one come to the conclusion that a given detail, be it cultural, political, social, religious, artistic, or musical, is important enough to warrant our attention?
I will use an example of sorts. There is a version of history popular today about Galileo and the controversy surrounding his interactions with the Catholic Church. In particular, the following narrative is proposed. That Galileo stood for true science and the correct view that the earth revolved around the sun, and defied the religious authorities of the time who believed that the Ptolemaic model was correct that the earth was the center of the universe.
However, like all history, there is far more to the story than meets the eye. For example:
But Kepler was not the only contemporary of Galileo who was developing models to compete with the old Ptolemaic model. There were at least 6 models being proposed. The program[ed. A program that aired on television], like so many other biographies of Galileo, builds a straw man, by suggesting that the choices were between Galileo's Copernican model and an archaic model inherited from Aristotle. Another important scientist of the day, Tycho Brahe, had developed the Tychonic System. The Jesuits mentioned in the program (e.g Scheiner) were not proponents of the old Ptolemaic system but of the newer Tychonic System. The program implies that all of Galileo's opponents were clutching to some ancient scheme. The Tychonic system had been published in 1587, more than 40 years after Copernicus' death. It was based on the best set of celestial data up to that time. The data set was eventually used by Kepler to propose our modern view of planetary motion. Kepler and Tycho Brahe are often ignored in Galilean biographies but they were important. Perhaps the most important work in physics from the seventeenth century was Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica .Indeed such data would sever the connection between the actual events of the Galileo controversy and the meta-narrative of popular imagination, the notion of continuous war between religion and science.
But this is not to simply throw cold water on the Galileo myth. The point is that one has to consider what data is relevant from history in order to draw meaning from it. And to be sure that we are not ignoring data that is relevant simply because it does not support our wishes.
The second issue stems from the first. History, like all human affairs, is fraught with contradictions. There are no heroes that were not weak in some sense. Nor did there exist so horrible a person that there wasn't some glimmer of that image of God. King David's lust motivated him to kill a man to steal the man's wife. Hitler was a painter. And then there are those such as George Jacques Danton , who worked so hard to hurl France into the nightmare of the Terror only to die in an attempt to undo what he had wrought.
How does one make sense of the morass of history? How does one obtain truth from the data that seems to contradict itself at every turn? Indeed with such data it would seem that those who argue against transcendent truth have the upper hand. If there is such a narrative to be had from history, it is the most contradictory and muddled story ever written.
But there is one nagging question. Why do we keep coming back to it? Why do we continue to say that history is important? Why is there a drive, even a need within us for those ties to the past? This we will examine next.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
History VI
When we last left the subject of history I mentioned that the modern mind is preoccupied more with accumulating facts rather than interpreting them. To our modern mind it is more important to know "when" and "what" happened rather than "why". More important to know what the Magna Carta was rather than what it meant. With few exceptions (like the Galileo controversy) facts are far more important than the meaning behind them.
The most obvious example of this current state is the event known as "9/11." Even the name itself gives the game away. Only the raw data can be captured by the modern mind. The attack on the U.S.A. and the hurt inflicted is our preoccupation. Lost in the shuffle is the heroism of those rescuers who risked their lives to save others. How ordinary men became heroes in a time of trial is lost due to our inability to look higher than the rubble of buildings. Even when we attempt to look up we bring ourselves down.
This state of affairs is due to the modern mind's rejection of the concept of "universal truth." Truth that transcends both culture and time. The notion that all things in the created order abide by truths that are constant. We lack the ability to see meaning behind the events in our own lives because we have rejected the notion that there is such a thing.
By extension then it should not surprise us that we fail to grasp the meaning behind events in the past. By rejecting the truth in our own lives we thus obliterate any meaning of the lives of our ancestors. History is thus reduced to trivia, no more necessary than the latest knowledge of celebrity gossip or sports statistics.
But there are still remnants of this notion that learning history is important. We pay lip service to the notion that "history repeats itself" and "those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it." Yet both sayings imply that there is a transcendent truth imbedded in history. Truths that can be learned that apply outside of both culture and time.
It is this contradiction that we present to our children. We claim that history has something to teach us yet we do not live our lives as if truth exists. They see our hypocrisy and reject our knowledge. After all, if our beliefs are transitory and malleable, why shouldn't their beliefs be? And that includes our quaint notions that history is important.
But for those who believe that there is such a thing as universal truth history poses a problem as well. And that we will discuss next.
The most obvious example of this current state is the event known as "9/11." Even the name itself gives the game away. Only the raw data can be captured by the modern mind. The attack on the U.S.A. and the hurt inflicted is our preoccupation. Lost in the shuffle is the heroism of those rescuers who risked their lives to save others. How ordinary men became heroes in a time of trial is lost due to our inability to look higher than the rubble of buildings. Even when we attempt to look up we bring ourselves down.
This state of affairs is due to the modern mind's rejection of the concept of "universal truth." Truth that transcends both culture and time. The notion that all things in the created order abide by truths that are constant. We lack the ability to see meaning behind the events in our own lives because we have rejected the notion that there is such a thing.
By extension then it should not surprise us that we fail to grasp the meaning behind events in the past. By rejecting the truth in our own lives we thus obliterate any meaning of the lives of our ancestors. History is thus reduced to trivia, no more necessary than the latest knowledge of celebrity gossip or sports statistics.
But there are still remnants of this notion that learning history is important. We pay lip service to the notion that "history repeats itself" and "those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it." Yet both sayings imply that there is a transcendent truth imbedded in history. Truths that can be learned that apply outside of both culture and time.
It is this contradiction that we present to our children. We claim that history has something to teach us yet we do not live our lives as if truth exists. They see our hypocrisy and reject our knowledge. After all, if our beliefs are transitory and malleable, why shouldn't their beliefs be? And that includes our quaint notions that history is important.
But for those who believe that there is such a thing as universal truth history poses a problem as well. And that we will discuss next.
Friday, July 8, 2011
History V
Again my apologies for not returning to this subject earlier. I truly hope that attention span will increase as I get older, but most likely my inability to concentrate will simply get worse. In any event let us continue.
As we discussed last time, I proposed the idea that legends were the means by which a society taught truths such as the meaning of life, the universe, and everything to its future generations. Using imagery, characters and situations the legend illustrates truths such as the nature of mankind, the moral laws that govern such, and the relationship between the heavens and the earth. Truths that everyone should know but may not have the capacity to understand in forms such as formal logic or other presentations that only certain people can understand or relate to.
Stories are single author works for the most part. They are told by one author and constructed from beginning to end with a lesson or purpose (in theory at least). The greatest stories are those that tap into the very core of our existence and relate truth to us. We resonate with those stories because they communicate to us the truths of our existence and teach us about who we are. They impart knowledge that help us to understand ourselves and how to relate to each other.
Legends are what I would consider "societal stories." Unlike a story proper legends do not have a single author or source. Such stories are formed over time by a culture or society, often with modification or expansion. As such legends seem to be passed down more precisely because they seem to reflect that which society wants passed down. A "collective" story if you will.
These stories and legends, often are based on actual people and events. The narrative of the Flood is but one example. Almost every culture has some version of an apocalyptic flood that destroys most of mankind, but a remnant is saved. This to me suggests that there actually was a flood so devastating to early man that for all intensive purposes only a fraction of mankind remained.
But what is more important is that this event was used by most cultures as a jumping point. From the Hebrew Scriptures to Greek mythology cultures attempted to make sense out of that moment and wove that event into their legends. For the Scriptures the Flood is the just judgment of God on the wicked and the raising and protection of the just. Did the Flood happen though? Was there someone named Noah? Is the Ark real? These questions to me are not the point of the story, and such questions while interesting are trivia compared to the lessons the story attempts to impart to the hearer.
Alas, our modern sense recoil at the concept of deeper meaning. For us it is "just the facts, ma'am." The modern man seems to excel at collecting information and not being able to process it. It is the age old difference between "intelligence" and "wisdom." Our society has plenty of "intelligence" and no wisdom. It is this focus on "facts" apart from deeper meaning that causes our deficit of wisdom, and why History seems to lack any value today. It is this deficit that we will examine in our next post.
As we discussed last time, I proposed the idea that legends were the means by which a society taught truths such as the meaning of life, the universe, and everything to its future generations. Using imagery, characters and situations the legend illustrates truths such as the nature of mankind, the moral laws that govern such, and the relationship between the heavens and the earth. Truths that everyone should know but may not have the capacity to understand in forms such as formal logic or other presentations that only certain people can understand or relate to.
Stories are single author works for the most part. They are told by one author and constructed from beginning to end with a lesson or purpose (in theory at least). The greatest stories are those that tap into the very core of our existence and relate truth to us. We resonate with those stories because they communicate to us the truths of our existence and teach us about who we are. They impart knowledge that help us to understand ourselves and how to relate to each other.
Legends are what I would consider "societal stories." Unlike a story proper legends do not have a single author or source. Such stories are formed over time by a culture or society, often with modification or expansion. As such legends seem to be passed down more precisely because they seem to reflect that which society wants passed down. A "collective" story if you will.
These stories and legends, often are based on actual people and events. The narrative of the Flood is but one example. Almost every culture has some version of an apocalyptic flood that destroys most of mankind, but a remnant is saved. This to me suggests that there actually was a flood so devastating to early man that for all intensive purposes only a fraction of mankind remained.
But what is more important is that this event was used by most cultures as a jumping point. From the Hebrew Scriptures to Greek mythology cultures attempted to make sense out of that moment and wove that event into their legends. For the Scriptures the Flood is the just judgment of God on the wicked and the raising and protection of the just. Did the Flood happen though? Was there someone named Noah? Is the Ark real? These questions to me are not the point of the story, and such questions while interesting are trivia compared to the lessons the story attempts to impart to the hearer.
Alas, our modern sense recoil at the concept of deeper meaning. For us it is "just the facts, ma'am." The modern man seems to excel at collecting information and not being able to process it. It is the age old difference between "intelligence" and "wisdom." Our society has plenty of "intelligence" and no wisdom. It is this focus on "facts" apart from deeper meaning that causes our deficit of wisdom, and why History seems to lack any value today. It is this deficit that we will examine in our next post.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
History IV
My apologies for not returning to this subject earlier (I have a habit of losing my concentration. I blame the time period I'm in). But it is time to turn our attention back to history, by way of legends.
I first wish to clarify something that came up in discussions with others. The challenge to my thesis was that in today's world people are not interested in "History." In particular our young seem dreadfully incurious. I would answer the challenge twofold.
First, it is not all apparent that there is a lack of curiosity of history. What I perceive is a lack of curiosity of "History." The difference lies in the presentation. "History," as presented in classrooms across America, is a shadow of what it could be. Robbed of any rational perspective and lacking in any meaningful depth, "History" is taught and thought of today as a study in trivia. Facts of the past that for some reason are important to learn but when asked why the only reply teachers can muster are empty phrases such as "History repeats" and "Those who don't know their History are doomed to repeat it." With the parallels between modern America and ancient Rome quite apparent to anyone who has studied both, it appears that those who know their history are just as doomed to repeat as those who don't.
With that in mind it is no wonder that today's youth are apathetic toward history. If those who teach history are powerless to stop the repeat of history, why bother to learn it? It seems to have not done the previous generation any good. And why would one want to see the oncoming bus of history if one can do nothing about it? It would be akin to standing in the middle of the street and seeing the bus that is about to hit you. I for one would rather be looking the wrong way down the street, and my end to be swift.
But it is this lifeless form of "History" that serves quite well to contrast to the purpose of legends. Legends (I would argue) just one of the means used to communicate those elusive eternal truths that one generation would pass on to the next. What I mean by legends is rather loose in the definition. Legends, such as the journey of Odysseus or Gilgamesh, the heroics of King Aurthur, the stories of the Crusades, or the modern tales of Tolkien.
Legends, properly understood, have been used since man first could talk to communicate deeper truths that could not be expressed through mere dialogue. The journey of Gilgamesh taught of the inability to escape death. The journey of Odysseus teaches the arbitrary will of the gods and the fate of the dead. The story of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein warns of trying to play God. Such stories and legends throughout human imagination convey ideas and truths that cannot simply be expressed in their depth and magnitude through simple dialogue.
The legend of St. Francis and St. Claire, whose love for God burned so bright that the local town thought the forest was on fire, teaches with word imagery that which dry "facts" cannot convey. The love of God that was in them was so powerful that this legend is but one of many that surround the two saints. And like all legends that surround real people, the details factual quality is not important, but what the details are attempting to convey, the deeper truth of the light of the love of God.
This concept of legends lacking in "historical truth" but driving at deeper truths is one that must be explored a little more deeply if we are to understand history's true importance, and why
I first wish to clarify something that came up in discussions with others. The challenge to my thesis was that in today's world people are not interested in "History." In particular our young seem dreadfully incurious. I would answer the challenge twofold.
First, it is not all apparent that there is a lack of curiosity of history. What I perceive is a lack of curiosity of "History." The difference lies in the presentation. "History," as presented in classrooms across America, is a shadow of what it could be. Robbed of any rational perspective and lacking in any meaningful depth, "History" is taught and thought of today as a study in trivia. Facts of the past that for some reason are important to learn but when asked why the only reply teachers can muster are empty phrases such as "History repeats" and "Those who don't know their History are doomed to repeat it." With the parallels between modern America and ancient Rome quite apparent to anyone who has studied both, it appears that those who know their history are just as doomed to repeat as those who don't.
With that in mind it is no wonder that today's youth are apathetic toward history. If those who teach history are powerless to stop the repeat of history, why bother to learn it? It seems to have not done the previous generation any good. And why would one want to see the oncoming bus of history if one can do nothing about it? It would be akin to standing in the middle of the street and seeing the bus that is about to hit you. I for one would rather be looking the wrong way down the street, and my end to be swift.
But it is this lifeless form of "History" that serves quite well to contrast to the purpose of legends. Legends (I would argue) just one of the means used to communicate those elusive eternal truths that one generation would pass on to the next. What I mean by legends is rather loose in the definition. Legends, such as the journey of Odysseus or Gilgamesh, the heroics of King Aurthur, the stories of the Crusades, or the modern tales of Tolkien.
Legends, properly understood, have been used since man first could talk to communicate deeper truths that could not be expressed through mere dialogue. The journey of Gilgamesh taught of the inability to escape death. The journey of Odysseus teaches the arbitrary will of the gods and the fate of the dead. The story of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein warns of trying to play God. Such stories and legends throughout human imagination convey ideas and truths that cannot simply be expressed in their depth and magnitude through simple dialogue.
The legend of St. Francis and St. Claire, whose love for God burned so bright that the local town thought the forest was on fire, teaches with word imagery that which dry "facts" cannot convey. The love of God that was in them was so powerful that this legend is but one of many that surround the two saints. And like all legends that surround real people, the details factual quality is not important, but what the details are attempting to convey, the deeper truth of the light of the love of God.
This concept of legends lacking in "historical truth" but driving at deeper truths is one that must be explored a little more deeply if we are to understand history's true importance, and why
Thursday, March 24, 2011
History III
One may question the relationship between history and legends. From a purely direct standpoint one could say that one is fact and the other fiction. But if we look at the previous question - why do we study history - looking at legends and fables provides us with a window toward answering the riddle.
Despite our society's best efforts to destroy the family, parents still occasionally read their children bedtime stories. They talk about growing up in their time, what they did and who they formed friendships with. We tell stories to our friends for a variety of purposes. To make them laugh, or to make a point. It is the latter that I believe gets us closer to the purpose of legends.
Perhaps there was no greater storyteller than Jesus Christ. Mountains of literature and study have been written about the masterful parables that Jesus told the crowds during His missionary days. How every detail seems to have something to teach both the original hearers of the story and for the future.
I should warn you dear reader that I have no intention of examining the parables of Jesus Christ as much smarter scholars and much holier men have written much more worthwhile things than I could. I bring them up because there is an unfortunate secret about the parables of Jesus Christ. Brace yourself....they not do have much evidence to support them historically.
Now it is entirely possible for example that a man did in fact have two sons at one point and that one blew his inheritance on a good time in the ancient world's version of Vegas. Or that a farmer did in fact sow seeds (because farmers did such things back then), only to have a criminal sow tares to attack the wheat. Or that there was indeed a shepherd who lost a sheep at one point and looked for a good long time for it. But as for their accuracy of depicting events the parables simply don't have a leg to stand on historically.
Shocking, I know. But perhaps, just perhaps, there was another reason why Christ would make up stories out of whole cloth. I know I'm stretching things a bit, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the point was not to be historically accurate. That in fact the story's aim is not to be historical at all. No, the point I believe, and this is only a theory mind you, that the aim of the stories He told were to present a moral truth of some kind. A truth that, via the events in the stories and the symbols used, impart to the listener a moral lesson or set of moral truths.
Now if truth can be communicated via a historically unsubstantiated story, then what other modes of communication have people throughout time to convey ideas, truths and values? I propose that legends served this purpose. And that various kinds of legends with various kinds of historical dubiousness were used as a sort of mode of learning. And I ask that you be patient, dear reader, as I will come to a point eventually. Hopefully it will be worth the wait.
Despite our society's best efforts to destroy the family, parents still occasionally read their children bedtime stories. They talk about growing up in their time, what they did and who they formed friendships with. We tell stories to our friends for a variety of purposes. To make them laugh, or to make a point. It is the latter that I believe gets us closer to the purpose of legends.
Perhaps there was no greater storyteller than Jesus Christ. Mountains of literature and study have been written about the masterful parables that Jesus told the crowds during His missionary days. How every detail seems to have something to teach both the original hearers of the story and for the future.
I should warn you dear reader that I have no intention of examining the parables of Jesus Christ as much smarter scholars and much holier men have written much more worthwhile things than I could. I bring them up because there is an unfortunate secret about the parables of Jesus Christ. Brace yourself....they not do have much evidence to support them historically.
Now it is entirely possible for example that a man did in fact have two sons at one point and that one blew his inheritance on a good time in the ancient world's version of Vegas. Or that a farmer did in fact sow seeds (because farmers did such things back then), only to have a criminal sow tares to attack the wheat. Or that there was indeed a shepherd who lost a sheep at one point and looked for a good long time for it. But as for their accuracy of depicting events the parables simply don't have a leg to stand on historically.
Shocking, I know. But perhaps, just perhaps, there was another reason why Christ would make up stories out of whole cloth. I know I'm stretching things a bit, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the point was not to be historically accurate. That in fact the story's aim is not to be historical at all. No, the point I believe, and this is only a theory mind you, that the aim of the stories He told were to present a moral truth of some kind. A truth that, via the events in the stories and the symbols used, impart to the listener a moral lesson or set of moral truths.
Now if truth can be communicated via a historically unsubstantiated story, then what other modes of communication have people throughout time to convey ideas, truths and values? I propose that legends served this purpose. And that various kinds of legends with various kinds of historical dubiousness were used as a sort of mode of learning. And I ask that you be patient, dear reader, as I will come to a point eventually. Hopefully it will be worth the wait.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
History Part II
If one were to look at history as a whole without any preconceived notions or ideas, my assumption would be that the observer would come to one conclusion: Human beings are an incoherent mess with a propensity toward self-destruction. A morass of chaos and insanity that has no point and no goal. Attempting to draw a narrative or progression from history would only lead one to madness.
Yet almost precisely the opposite happens. Almost to a man history not only has lessons for us but conveniently enough it confirms my particular viewpoint, and yours, and a variety of others such as PHDs (but they are always wrong, that's why we label them with PHD. It's a warning label). In fact the more one stands to benefit materially from one's perspective of history the more likely one is hideously wrong. But that is a subject for another day.
But one thing we all agree on implicitly, that history has something to teach us. It is a remarkable axiom given the chaos that is human history. Regardless of religious, philosophical, cultural, or ethnic background we assume that looking at the successes and failures of our forebears has some sort of transcendent value. Something to teach us, even if the only lesson is "whatever we did, do the opposite." I do not hold this as the only lesson history can teach us. Mostly for selfish reasons. I would hate to think future generations would look upon myself and think, "What an oaf!" Not that they would be wrong, but I am counting on the passage of time to muddy the waters of memory a bit. And it would be such a waste of time if my history was obscured only to have the future oafs assume I was one with no evidence anyway.
In any event it is almost taken for granted that history has something to teach us. Yet it seems very often that rather we have something to impart to history. Meaning. Shockingly, even atheists who insist that there is no meaning in any objective sense insist that history shows such truths as religion is the root of all evil and there were no scientists before Darwin.
What exactly is going on here? Why attach such profound importance to yesterday's news? In order to understand this I think the best way to start to answer the question is to move away from history into another realm entirely. One which "sensible" people laugh and cough with mild embarrassment when asked to take it seriously (and which the aforementioned PHDs regard with disdain).
Legends.
Yet almost precisely the opposite happens. Almost to a man history not only has lessons for us but conveniently enough it confirms my particular viewpoint, and yours, and a variety of others such as PHDs (but they are always wrong, that's why we label them with PHD. It's a warning label). In fact the more one stands to benefit materially from one's perspective of history the more likely one is hideously wrong. But that is a subject for another day.
But one thing we all agree on implicitly, that history has something to teach us. It is a remarkable axiom given the chaos that is human history. Regardless of religious, philosophical, cultural, or ethnic background we assume that looking at the successes and failures of our forebears has some sort of transcendent value. Something to teach us, even if the only lesson is "whatever we did, do the opposite." I do not hold this as the only lesson history can teach us. Mostly for selfish reasons. I would hate to think future generations would look upon myself and think, "What an oaf!" Not that they would be wrong, but I am counting on the passage of time to muddy the waters of memory a bit. And it would be such a waste of time if my history was obscured only to have the future oafs assume I was one with no evidence anyway.
In any event it is almost taken for granted that history has something to teach us. Yet it seems very often that rather we have something to impart to history. Meaning. Shockingly, even atheists who insist that there is no meaning in any objective sense insist that history shows such truths as religion is the root of all evil and there were no scientists before Darwin.
What exactly is going on here? Why attach such profound importance to yesterday's news? In order to understand this I think the best way to start to answer the question is to move away from history into another realm entirely. One which "sensible" people laugh and cough with mild embarrassment when asked to take it seriously (and which the aforementioned PHDs regard with disdain).
Legends.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
History
I've often heard that phrase "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." However it has occurred to me that if you were to look at human history randomly I'm not sure what exactly you would learn. Athiests for example believe that the Church suppressed science and technology out of some fear of the truth. Protestants (in some circles) likewise believe that the Church suppressed the "True Faith." Even a cursory glance at history would reveal these to be laughable, but nonetheless these ideas continue to thrive in our so-called "advanced society". Present evidence to these views, such as Issac Newton being a Catholic monk(apparently this is not the case, though Newton's belief in God is without question his full beliefs are more colorful than that), the university was originally a Catholic invention, or the founder of modern geology was a Jesuit, and such evidence is dismissed with a wave of the hand.
What I find interesting is this idea of "versions" of history. History by nature implies a judgement call. Like any other form of information we must decide what is important enough to warrant our attention. But if we do that, we may miss the "lessons" history is actually trying to teach us. But then again such an idea assumes that history is some kind of teacher, that we can actually glean truth about mankind from seemingly unrelated and chaotic events. So which is it? Are we learning from history? Or are we imposing our view of the world on the events of history to create a "narrative" to support our own framework?
It is an interesting riddle to solve, even more so now because our access to information grows exponentially everyday. How does one evaluate and filter information? Is modern man even capable of evaluating information that does not meet preconceived notions as worthwhile? In order to answer this question in my opinion we must ask a more fundamental question. What are we trying to accomplish in the first place?
What I find interesting is this idea of "versions" of history. History by nature implies a judgement call. Like any other form of information we must decide what is important enough to warrant our attention. But if we do that, we may miss the "lessons" history is actually trying to teach us. But then again such an idea assumes that history is some kind of teacher, that we can actually glean truth about mankind from seemingly unrelated and chaotic events. So which is it? Are we learning from history? Or are we imposing our view of the world on the events of history to create a "narrative" to support our own framework?
It is an interesting riddle to solve, even more so now because our access to information grows exponentially everyday. How does one evaluate and filter information? Is modern man even capable of evaluating information that does not meet preconceived notions as worthwhile? In order to answer this question in my opinion we must ask a more fundamental question. What are we trying to accomplish in the first place?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
A nice primer
For what I hope to be a blog post or two in the future about history. But didn't want it to be left unmentioned.
On Historical Perspectives
A particular topic that I have been mulling over is the concept of historical perspectives. Be they religious, secular, scientific, particular viewpoints and presuppositions have an effect on how we perceive and evaluate not only events in our lives, but in the lives of those in the past.
What got this line of thinking started was a particular comment from a friend of mine regarding the "Catholic" view of history from the "secular" view of history. The comment was not important so much as the idea of competing views of history. As if there was one view of history that was fundamentally religious in nature and another that was secular, and that these two views compete for the title of "The Truth."
To me this view was troubling (not the view of my friend but what my friend's comment seemed to suggest) for a number of reasons. Primarily it posits the idea that there is a "Catholic" narrative to history. While it is true in the overall sense in that history is the story of God's plan for salvation of mankind, this comment seemed to indicate that there is a specific viewpoint on events in history that is the "Catholic" view. The Crusades were just wars I suppose would be one example.
This is incorrect primarily because it forces a viewpoint on the Catholic faithful that leaves little room for exploration. There are Catholics that repute and abhor the Crusades, just as there are secularist historians that show sympathy to the Crusaders. It may be a surprise to the reader that a Catholic can, if the opinion is truly honest, believe that the Second World War did not happen and still be a Catholic (however delusional that opinion may be).
The comment however does indicate to me a number of things that I think illustrate the problem the modern mind has with history, and the confusion that surrounds the proper use of history and what we hope to gain by studying it. I hope to explore in future posts these issues and in doing point out what I consider to be how our current society handles history and the problems that result from it.
What got this line of thinking started was a particular comment from a friend of mine regarding the "Catholic" view of history from the "secular" view of history. The comment was not important so much as the idea of competing views of history. As if there was one view of history that was fundamentally religious in nature and another that was secular, and that these two views compete for the title of "The Truth."
To me this view was troubling (not the view of my friend but what my friend's comment seemed to suggest) for a number of reasons. Primarily it posits the idea that there is a "Catholic" narrative to history. While it is true in the overall sense in that history is the story of God's plan for salvation of mankind, this comment seemed to indicate that there is a specific viewpoint on events in history that is the "Catholic" view. The Crusades were just wars I suppose would be one example.
This is incorrect primarily because it forces a viewpoint on the Catholic faithful that leaves little room for exploration. There are Catholics that repute and abhor the Crusades, just as there are secularist historians that show sympathy to the Crusaders. It may be a surprise to the reader that a Catholic can, if the opinion is truly honest, believe that the Second World War did not happen and still be a Catholic (however delusional that opinion may be).
The comment however does indicate to me a number of things that I think illustrate the problem the modern mind has with history, and the confusion that surrounds the proper use of history and what we hope to gain by studying it. I hope to explore in future posts these issues and in doing point out what I consider to be how our current society handles history and the problems that result from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)