Why do you study History?

[Azale]

I start wondering about why the hell I do something this stupid and those kinds of questions get uncomfortable.

So what isn't stupid?

I want so much to rather be studying history than engineering.

hmm. I think it's because I've always wanted my life to be something more, to be something more than just a random person in the world. I've always wanted to be something special, and can you blame me? I think most people want the same thing. So I study history because I'm fascinated with all the civilizations and people who have done great things, and deep down I want to be one of them. And I'm not talking about a story in the local news, I've always wanted to be remember, not 100 years from now, not 500 years from now but thousands of years from now. A person people hundreds, and thousands of years from now can look up to and say "Wow, he was GREAT. He represented heroic characteristics, was intelligent, and charismatic."

Now, of course once I got to the age of about 14 I realized how unlikely that is, so since then I've decided to just study history... Deep down though, somewhere, I think I still want to make history.

I can completely sympathize with this. It's definitely dangerous to plot your life path on an idea so romantic, but it's also oddly satisfying.

History is unbelievably awesome for economists. Short institutional memories are something to loathe.

Economics was like watching paint dry for me until I recently (last 6 months or so) became interested in the relations between economics and history.

I don't know how economists can live (much less be employed) without having a strong background in history.

 

[Dachs]

So what isn't stupid?

I dunno. Like I said, I try not to think about it too much.

 

[Kawzmo191]

I've always wanted to be what I read about when I was a little kid, and then some. History for a chubby, funny looking little ginger kid like myself helped me feel better about the world. That if you were really of sound mind and ideals, with a flair for innovation, that people would overlook your physical flaws for what they believe to be the greater good.

 

[Masada]

To feel stupid on a regular basis.

I don't know how economists can live (much less be employed) without having a strong background in history.

Dunno either.

 

[vogtmurr]

ah, but it gives examples of where a chosen behaviour in similar circumstances has taken people in the past. Human behaviour seems very cyclic, with every generation destined to repeat the same stupid mistakes as the previous generation; or maybe its every two generations.

But it doesn't, because they're invariably not the same mistakes. In history, context is everything. Saying "lol Hitler shouldve lernd frum Napoleon not two invade Rusha" or something like that is nonsense, because the Nazi state faced different challenges than did the Imperial French. Many of them were the same on a systemic level, perhaps, but most weren't, and directly comparing the two invasions falls apart quite rapidly. That's only the most famous example, though. Regrettably, most of them relate to military history, because of all the amateur military historians and armchair generals. There aren't quite so many armchair economic historians or social historians.

good thing I wasn't referring to military history then
it was an observation that societies tend to have short term memories and even shorter term interests

but now that you mention it, yah, you'd think the general staff would have learned enough from history to issue the wehrmacht with proper clothing and winterized equipment before burying them in the heart of Russia

 

[Bast]

Because historical events and people are far more interesting than right now.

 

[Azale]

A world that has Putin, Ahmadinijad, Qaddafi, AND Kim Jong Il is LESS interesting?

 

[Heretic_Cata]

A world that has Putin, Ahmadinijad, Qaddafi, AND Kim Jong Il is LESS interesting?

That depends. Are they wearing victorian clothing ?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Kim could use a corset.

 

[sophie]

To feel stupid on a regular basis.

Definitely not why I initially decided to study history. But it certainly is starting to become a large part of how I study history.

 

[Bast]

A world that has Putin, Ahmadinijad, Qaddafi, AND Kim Jong Il is LESS interesting?

All talk and no action. Give me men who could make things happen like Charles V, Louis XIV or Napoleon any day.

That depends. Are they wearing victorian clothing ?

How dare you? Maybe you should try to get to know someone before opening your mouth again.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I dunno, Victorian clothing is far more likely to catch my interest than a Nehru jacket.

 

[Joecoolyo]

All talk and no action. Give me men who could make things happen like Charles V, Louis XIV or Napoleon any day.

Charles V, Louis XIV, and Napoleon weren't graced with the ability to hug the world with nuclear arms.

 

[BuckyRea]

I don't know how economists can live (much less be employed) without having a strong background in history.

Well, you might want to take that up with Art Laffer. He has made a great career for himself based on a pure theory of economics that runs entirely contrary to the historical evidence. In fact, the raison d'ebtor of most conservative economics in American politics--the unsubstantiated theory that if you cut taxes you'll raise revenues from the net increased economic activity resulting from those tax cuts--is fueled by this history-defying logic. My own alma mater won't hire a professor of economics who doesn't subscribe to this absurdity.

 

[Masada]

Definitely not why I initially decided to study history. But it certainly is starting to become a large part of how I study history.

Its a good feeling, it keeps you grounded.

He has made a great career for himself based on a pure theory of economics that runs entirely contrary to the historical evidence.

Not really. It was simply an observation. And its true enough. If you raise taxes to 100% then economically rational people will have no incentive to work. Reducing revenue collected to a 100% of 0. On the other hand, if you lower taxes to 0% then there won't obviously be any revenue to collect. That's the basis for the Laffer Curve.

In fact, the raison d'ebtor of most conservative economics in American politics--the unsubstantiated theory that if you cut taxes you'll raise revenues from the net increased economic activity resulting from those tax cuts--is fueled by this history-defying logic.

I dunno but this economist can think of a number of historical occurrences where this has been the case. Siam's modernisation of its finances under Mongkut courtesy of the Bowring Treaty being one. The Dutch East Indies transition from the Cultivation Period to the Ethical Period being another.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, you might want to take that up with Art Laffer. He has made a great career for himself based on a pure theory of economics that runs entirely contrary to the historical evidence. In fact, the raison d'ebtor of most conservative economics in American politics--the unsubstantiated theory that if you cut taxes you'll raise revenues from the net increased economic activity resulting from those tax cuts--is fueled by this history-defying logic. My own alma mater won't hire a professor of economics who doesn't subscribe to this absurdity.

Either you don't understand what the Laffer curve is, or you're grossly misrepresenting it -- unless you'd care to assert differently what the revenue would be if the tax rates approached 100%.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

It's fascinating.

That's it, really.

Same here.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I study history because strategy games like Age of Empires got me into it

 

[SG-17]

This is why I study history.

Lemuel Cook, the last survivor of America's War for Independence. He help form his nation, lived to see it torn asunder, and thankfully, be reunited.

Biography linked.
http://www.burrcook.com/history/lemuel.htm

 

[GoodGame]

I've been writing an essay for my Oxford application about this very topic and I became quite interested in hearing your opinions.

I study history because I believe that mankind traces all of its actions back to historical precedent. People justify their actions based on past events and the past has an emotional connection from which we are preconditioned to build our moral compasses off of.

Why do you study history?

Because:

1. it's interesting, and sometimes fun, at least in a cathartic/sadistic kind of way. Like marveling at the punishment that Otto I dished out.

2. it's educational. Like imagine if you were Abraham Lincoln. Would you have acted like he did? Would you have gotten along with his administration and generals like he would have? Stuff you learn from history usually does have bearing on the modern world and timeless topics.