Sell me on history/how & why do you study history?

[Dreadnought]

The ideas of historians economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist historian.

Nice try, but you've now eviscerated an otherwise substantial quote.

 

[Dachs]

I haven't studied history, but I had assumed that historical analyses at least attempted to be made within a coherent intellectual framework. Even if this intellectual framework was insufficiently rigorous to establish absolute truths in the way that the scientific method can, it can still point us in the right direction, in the way that philosophy can.

You're assuming here that the end-state goal of historical inquiry is knowledge in the Rankean sense, wie es eigentlich gewesen. I, uh, don't know that that's a universally agreed upon thing.

 

[Mise]

You're assuming here that the end-state goal of historical inquiry is knowledge in the Rankean sense, wie es eigentlich gewesen. I, uh, don't know that that's a universally agreed upon thing.

I don't think I'm assuming that, or, if I am, that my argument substantially depends on it.

1) Does it need to be the "end state goal"? Can't it be one of many goals? Can't it be a secondary goal or something? Does it even need to be a goal at all? Can't it just be a useful by-product of historical inquiry? Don't I just need to assume that knowledge-in-the-Rankean-sense happens, whether by accident or design, through historical inquiry?
2) Does everyone need to agree on it for it to be useful? If you don't agree with it, then you won't find historical analysis useful; but if I agree with it, then I would find it useful. Minimally, therefore, historical analysis is useful to the extent to which people agree that historical inquiry results in knowledge in the Rankean sense, subject to (1).
3) Are you misunderstanding what I mean by "establishing truths"? To be clear, "segregation didn't work" and "we shouldn't do it again" are both the kinds of statements I'm talking about; historical analysis may not establish the truth or falsehood of either of those statements absolutely, but it can point us in the right direction. This is really all I'm saying, and I wouldn't have thought it would be controversial.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why study biology, literature, physics, or computer science? Because it interests you. I can't make you care about the Committee for Union and Progress, and you sure as hell can't make me care about Newtonian physics.

This...

I really enjoy history. Its my favorite subject. I don't need to know why I like what I like to know what I do like.

That said, history is concrete, either you know the material or you don't. That's one reason I like it. In addition, I find it interesting. You read history, and you know whaat happened. You read math, and you still have to learn it

Plus, for some reason, Math and Science don't interest me so much....

 

[innonimatu]

The ideas of historians economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist historian.

Oh, just put it this way:

"Is is good to be he who controls history. But somehow he never seems to be an historian..."

 

[sophie]

That said, history is concrete, either you know the material or you don't. That's one reason I like it. In addition, I find it interesting. You read history, and you know whaat happened. You read math, and you still have to learn it

lol. You have a lot to learn about history and how it works at the academic level.

 

[Narz]

Good responses, this is why I like posted cause I can get all sorts of perspectives I wouldn't have considered on my own (or ones I perhaps would have thought of but phrased more elequantly, like tailless' post right off the bat).

And I am glad that you said usually and not always...

Wasn't thinking of you of course, just some old woodpushers at my club who know how Topalov is doing in the latest tournament & a bunch of trivia about various past champions but remain in the 1200's.

 

[MobBoss]

Well my personal motto is the quote from Edmund Burke: Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. That is why it is important to learn from history, so we avoid the mistakes of the past.

The sad thing about that quote is the simple fact even in knowing history, they still repeat it.

 

[Tee Kay]

Wonderfully worded.

That's just awesome Tailless.

Indeed, well put.

I like the way tailless answered this

What Tailess said really

See? No regret involved.

Where can I nominate this for Post of the Week?

or ones I perhaps would have thought of but phrased more elequantly, like tailless' post right off the bat

aw shucks

You read history, and you know whaat happened.

No you don't, really. More often than not, you know a snippet of a version of an interpretation of a part of what may have happened.

 

[Masada]

Nice try, but you've now eviscerated an otherwise substantial quote.

i'm not about to be lectured by a traitor states supporter on anything.