Is History Important ?

[yugimawa]

History perhaps the most important and interesting thing around us as a 14 year old I think its my fav. subject

 

so many unanswered questions and who knows something you do today may be noticed in 100's of years

 

 

we make history as I type it can not be undone even with a time machine it just happens

 

 

but remember this as you take make your next move, is it something that a new era of people will notice long after your gone or will you just be another one that changes nothing, doesnt set a mark, for lack of a better term "wasting" in the place we live today.....

[Vagrant0]

If we take a look at history! (funny enough) it shows that the historical horizon differs from country to country. I am not trying to be rude or offend anybody, but it´s a fact that contries like US, Australia and Latinamerica has a young history (like 4-500 years). Compared to Europe, Russia and Asia wich have an acient history.

History creates culture, the older the history the deeper the culture. I am not saying that US/Australia/Latinamerica do not have a culture. The population all come from Europe and brougth theire roots, their culture from there, but since EU was and is a multi-culture continent, and the settlers was building up new land, new countries, I guess they probably had to start a new "history" all over. Still with influence of their ancient respective history/culture.

 

EDIT:: And I am the Nay sayer, and now I believe history is important :P

While I might be inclined to agree, I should point out that America has made up for its lack of historical depth with it's breadth. In the 300 or so years they've had a few dozen wars and skirmishes, brought themselves to the brink of destruction several times, reformed themselves time and time again, and committed plenty of mistakes along the way. While there may be a shortage of years, Americans being Americans, have had no problem with filling them up with noteworthy events. The lack of any true American "Culture" is more to do with the mixed and varied peoples who live in and shape the country than historical significance. American "Culture" is not easily recognized because it often mirrors or borrows from many others, or is dismissed entirely for being too "new" to count.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

I made this topic because I thought history isn't too important. I think we often learn about the past but we don't learn from the past. (if that makes any sense)

[desperado2008]

I made this topic because I thought history isn't too important. I think we often learn about the past but we don't learn from the past. (if that makes any sense)

 

that's the difference between history and chronicle, history is thought and nothing exists outside thought while chronicle is rememberance, both are based on testimonies, documents... though.

 

I quote the full article about Croce, hope it helps.

 

Croce's main identification of philosophy and history influences all his historiographical methodology. The reference work on methodology of history is Zur Teorie und Geschichte der Historiographie. Every history is contemporary history, for history is the unity of life and thought. Every thought is historical, for thought has already been and every history has already thought. Contemporaneity is an intrinsic character of every history, for history is thought, a synthetic unity with life. Only an interest resulting from present life can move the inquiry of an historical event; and contemporary history can be defined really history only if it answers the demands of the present. History is always constructed on documents, for without reference to documents it would remained unproved. As testimonies, documents are simple data or simple facts, they are the statement of the historian's living interest. The difference between history and chronicle is based on the historian's spiritual attitude and not on the selection of historical or non-historical events. Events are historical, for they are thought and nothing exists outside of thought. A non-historical event would not be thought and therefore would not be existing. History is living history, while chronicle is dead history, and after all it is not longer history. Contemporary history as an act of thought is opposed to chronicle as an act of volition. Every history becomes chronicle when it is not more thought, but only remembered. History separate from the alive document is chronicle and it is no more a spiritual action, but just a complex of sounds and empty words. Even if recombined and reordered, chronicles remain empty narrations. Restored, reproduced documents remain always and solely dumb things. Philological history is a simple compilation, often useful, but always deprived of historical thought, for truth does lie in itself but in the extrinsic authority of the documents. Croce criticizes not only the historical form of chronicles, but also poetic pseudo-history. If history is the history of spirit, and if the spirit is the only conceivable value, it follows that history is always history of values. The determining value, however, is not the artistic feeling expressed by poetry, which is neither life nor thought. It is not an error to write poetic pseudo-history, it is an error to pretend to write history instead of poems or narrations. In fact, poetry is a subject that is spiritually inferior to history. Not all history, however, can be universal history if it does not regard a concrete action or event and claims instead to construct empty narrations out of a number of elements. History must not to universal history, but it must be history of the universal. History is thought, therefore it is thought of the universal in its concreteness always determined in the particular. History is expression of judgments, it is synthesis of the individual and the universal. The individual is the subject of the judgment and the universal is the predicate. According to Croce, however, the true subject of history is the predicate, because the judgment determines the way to characterize the universal. Before the Second World War, Croce excludes from his historical methodology the moral evaluation of events. Historians must not apply moral qualifications to events or human beings. Historical consciousness, as thought, is logical and not practical consciousness. The lived history is thought in consciousness, and in thought disappears the antithesis of volition and feeling. In history there are no bad or good events, all events are good if they are conceived in the light of the concept. The history is never executioner, it justifies always. It could be executioner only by becoming unjust, i.e, when it confuses thought with life or the judgment of thought with the attractions and the repulsions of feeling. The task of history instead, according to Croce, lies in setting man free from the oppressive weight of the past. Philosophy is a necessary moment of the methodology of history, i.e., it is the clarification of the constituent categories of the historical judgments.

[yugimawa]

saying history isnt important is like saying that nothing is history is not just the past you can use it that way but history is

 

 

History (from Greek ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study of the human past. Scholars who write about history are called historians. It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the sequence of events, and it often attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events. Historians debate the nature of history and its usefulness. This includes discussing the study of the discipline as an end in itself and as a way of providing "perspective" on the problems of the present. The stories common to a particular culture, but not supported by external sources (such as the legends surrounding King Arthur) are usually classified as cultural heritage rather than the "disinterested investigation" needed by the discipline of history. Events of the past prior to written record are considered prehistory

 

 

every second that passes is now history so

 

your name, life, EVERYTHING is unimportant?

 

 

quite frankly the kinda topics you start even tho any debate is aloud here simply means

[Vagrant0]

every second that passes is now history so

To play devil's advocate here I'm reminded of a saying one of my friends often said "If everyone were special, nobody would be." Or to change it slightly, "If everything were special, nothing would be". Meaning that those important dates and events are only important because they have been acknowledged as being particularly significant. So one could argue that history is actually not important until some future event decides it is. Honestly, can you see the dozens of mindless viral videos as being particularly noteworthy in the future? What of all those pop-culture things of the 70's, 80's, and 90's? While they might be significant to land a brief (and repeated) mention on VH1, in the broad scheme of things they are kinda unimportant. Likewise, things that were popular in the past, although may have indirectly shaped some events, aren't that important in and of themselves. It's still history, but it's the kind of history that quickly fades away to memory and really doesn't have enough substance to keep around.

[myrmaad]

"If everyone were special, nobody would be."

 

That saying is one of my huge pet peeves. I won't go off on a brutal witchslap tangent about it right now though.

Is it any less amazing that every snowflake is unique? Is it any less awe-inspiring that all fingerprints are singularly distinctive?

 

There are literally thousands of historic figures that aren't remembered but who made a very relevant impact on your current life (and mine). History isn't made of only those bits that someone thought to write down. And "pre-history" is still history.

 

By the way:

The Romans settled London, and built the first London Bridge on the same site where it still stands today.

I'm surprised it's "contrary to popular belief" that most slaves were not mistreated. Isn't it common knowledge that the Chattel Slavery practiced in the US was the most brutal form of systematic dehumanization that history has ever seen, an anomaly, a malignancy unique to its time and place?

And why isn't "Wall of Text" against the rules? That's just rude.

Edited February 26, 2010 by myrmaad

[desperado2008]

"your name, life, EVERYTHING is unimportant?"

of course not, to those who don't know you exist.

example:

everyday you piss more than once, everytime you piss is an event, such events are not historical to you and you hardly remember, unless oneday you find youself gotten contagious disease while pissing, that event becomes historical to you.

 

that is "Only an interest resulting from present life can move the inquiry of an historical event"(see the article above)

[myrmaad]

I disagree, it doesn't matter if you are faceless and nameless. You are part of a historical time and place. Maybe nameless and faceless but part of a larger group impacting future generations at every turn. Whether it's something you do specifically (like die in a bog where your body is preserved for a thousand years) or whether it's as part of a group (people who invaded another country), every person makes an impact in some small or large way.

[Balagor]

Sometimes history creates itself and sometimes history is created by the people who present it.

Barack Obama must have been pretty aware, that he will go straight into the books of history as the first black president of the US.

James Watt that in the 18´th century discoverd a frogs leg was moving when in water an exposed to zink or cobber, had no idea that today we named the power of electricity after him.