tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post3606428556960926855..comments2024-03-10T15:20:30.552-05:00Comments on stmhumanities: History as ConstructMrs.Qhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17626503384057111894noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-75488847962696798482008-09-14T00:48:00.000-05:002008-09-14T00:48:00.000-05:00I suppose I agree with everyone... in a way. Hist...I suppose I agree with everyone... in a way. History is always biased, yes. Everything is written with that certain person's personal point of view, and each person's point of view is different. You may share the same opinions, but the reasons and experiences behind that opinion which supports your beliefs are always, always varied.<BR/> Truth means something different for each person as well. As long as you find it to be true and meaningful to yourself, you should be able to accept other people's truths because it is also true to them, though maybe not to you. So, I guess I'm talking about "a" truth, not "the" truth. I don't think "the" truth really exists. How can we as flawed human beings really grasp the truth? We can understand the concept, but perhaps never fully realize it. Maybe.Margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14165636819119490404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-72139836760158921732008-08-30T22:35:00.000-05:002008-08-30T22:35:00.000-05:00What about trench coats? Do those count as jackets...What about trench coats? Do those count as jackets? Because trench coats are awesome.<BR/><BR/>What is a "jacket," anyway?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-67854719548186135862008-08-30T21:28:00.000-05:002008-08-30T21:28:00.000-05:00"To say that objective history is fine and post-mo...<I>"To say that objective history is fine and post-modernism does not apply to it is ludicrous!</I><BR/><BR/>Joelseph - I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. Literal is history that can't possibly be skewed, like saying that "WWII happened and the third Reich was ended." And yes, like Michelle was saying, literal history is intertwined with subjective history. But what I'm saying is that everything that happens beyond literal history is subjective. <BR/><BR/>"To say that your argument only applies to certain books that you think are subjective would be to contradict post-modernism."<BR/>That's not what I was saying at all...<BR/><BR/>I do, however, agree with your analysis of the superiority of jackets. Jackets can be both formal and casual, while sweaters are sort of on the line. Plus, the Man Utd. crest is more widely available on jackets than on sweaters - and that's all that's really important, right? Don't even respond to that; I know your answer is "yes." Of course, my opinion may be a little biased because I have a plethora of jackets (and extremely stylish ones, at that).<BR/><BR/>My point is that the only issue in life that has a definite and completely objective solution is that jackets are superior to sweaters. Jackets are me, and sweaters are n00bs that I am pwning.El Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14898094029369562643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-26640627201640428302008-08-30T17:52:00.000-05:002008-08-30T17:52:00.000-05:00Sorry, Andrew but I agree with John. To say that o...Sorry, Andrew but I agree with John. To say that objective history is fine and post-modernism does not apply to it is ludicrous! THAT'S RIGHT LUDICROUS!!!!11 <BR/><BR/>Post-modernism questions the histories and truths of the constructs which our society is based on, so how can you draw the line between objective and subjective history? To say that your argument only applies to certain books that you think are subjective would be to contradict post-modernism.<BR/><BR/>And as to the argument of jackets versus sweaters, Jackets are clearly the better choice. For example, Sometimes My torso is cold but my arms are hot, I can unzip the front while still keeping my arms cozy. Furthermore, The possibilities of different styles with jackets far exceeds that of sweaters. Sweaters come in only about 3 styles and looks with different graphics, but jackets can be completely different styles and looks and combinations. <BR/><BR/>JACKETS<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>PWN<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>SWEATERS<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>'<BR/>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111!!!joel derbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754048394186201749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-27083158018595633672008-08-30T16:00:00.000-05:002008-08-30T16:00:00.000-05:00Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War is li...Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War is literal history, which, as I argued earlier in this post, is objective. He studies and writes about irrefutable evidence that you'd have to be an idiot to deny (like the Iranian president/dictator/whatever he is saying that the Holocaust didn't happen). However, all history beyond literal history must be subjective - I'd keep going but I don't feel like repeating everything Michelle has been saying for the past week.<BR/><BR/>My point on the Tin Drum is that the reader isn't supposed to interpret it literally - that's why more than half the book is filled with the supernatural. Instead of interpreting it within the context of or own world, we need to interpret it in the context of Oskar's world. Anyway, we need to stop talking about this book. I'm beginning to hate it even more. <BR/><BR/>I guess I should follow the trend on here and apologize for the length of my post, even though I'm not really sorry that it's long, and even though it really isn't very long at all. Well I suppose that would depend on one's definition of the word "long." What is length? Who cares. On to a more important topic: Jackets Vs. SweatersEl Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14898094029369562643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-56965971498569460342008-08-30T01:00:00.000-05:002008-08-30T01:00:00.000-05:00lololol, just kidding. I just didn't have time to ...lololol, just kidding. I just didn't have time to do a response to Wise's call-out justice... but now I do.<BR/><BR/><I>"What parts are clearly biased?"</I><BR/><BR/>The part where he's a 3-foot-tall midget Casanova whose scream can shatter glass and whose magical drumming can stop an army's march. Maybe Oskar really believes those things... but he's clearly very biased towards his own divinity, considering that he compares himself to Jesus.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"If you want to analyze it like a real-life historical account, you have to remove ALL supernatural occurrences, including his glass shattering voice, his drumming, and about half of the entire novel."</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah. That's right... I don't see what you're getting at here.<BR/><BR/>Lots of folk history includes supernatural occurrences - like in 100 Years of Solitude. There could easily be some truth in there, but the supernatural stuff is an indication that maybe the source isn't so good, and that it could've possibly been written by somebody who thinks he's three feet tall because he willed himself to be.<BR/><BR/>The credible parts of the book would be the parts about the war, but I would say not to trust any writer who clearly has such a thin grasp on reality.<BR/><BR/><I>Care to provide any examples of "better sources?"</I><BR/><BR/>Thucydides, author of <I>The History of the Peloponnesian War,</I> one of the earliest historians whose work survives today. From Wikipedia:<BR/><BR/><I>"Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 395 BC) (Greek Θουκυδίδης, Thoukydídēs) was a Greek historian and author of the History of the Peloponnesian War, which recounts the 5th century BC war between Sparta and Athens to the year 411 BC. Thucydides has been dubbed the father of "scientific history" due to his strict standards of evidence-gathering and analysis in terms of cause and effect without reference to intervention by the gods.[1]"</I><BR/><BR/>Strict standards of evidence-gathering and analysis in terms of cause and effect. Now that's a source I'll trust. Not entirely, because even the best sources can be purposely or accidentally inaccurate - but definitely far more than a little midget with a drum.<BR/><BR/><I>"An attack on truth?" Post modernism doesn't attack truth, it merely questions our conceptions of the truth (not just history), which will eventually lead to a better understanding of the truth.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm going to save discussion of this for the Foucault topic, but suffice it to say that, after looking it up, I learned that there is a LOT of variation within postmodern philosophy, and a discussion about what postmodernism is and isn't would be very difficult and would very possibly be pointless.<BR/><BR/>I'm posting on the humanities blog at 1:00 AM, how cool am I.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-26032531046320562212008-08-29T23:36:00.000-05:002008-08-29T23:36:00.000-05:00I agree with Taylor. The postmodern ideals that fu...I agree with Taylor. The postmodern ideals that fuel the thoughts of our current generation will come into great effect during this storm season and the upcoming Gustav. The fellowship of the couch must not be compromised due to the physiological and physical effects of Gustav.joel derbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754048394186201749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-27084677076266774182008-08-29T23:31:00.000-05:002008-08-29T23:31:00.000-05:00News regarding the fellowship of the couch: As pos...News regarding the fellowship of the couch: <BR/><BR/>As postmodernism has taught me to not trust in history, I must go against this and fear the unimaginable idea, based on the past of Katrina, that the fellowship may be compromised due to Gustav. This strongly bothers me and proves that postmodernism cannot always be trusted.tmichalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05339337272098527708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-69850517441152248882008-08-29T21:52:00.000-05:002008-08-29T21:52:00.000-05:00Wise -Your post was too long, I didn't read it.Wise -<BR/><BR/>Your post was too long, I didn't read it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-82583416691722019972008-08-29T16:48:00.000-05:002008-08-29T16:48:00.000-05:00...not looking to get into a "blog fight"...not looking to get into a "blog fight"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-78992652051536170482008-08-29T16:46:00.000-05:002008-08-29T16:46:00.000-05:00el paco i see what you are saying, but i still thi...el paco i see what you are saying, but i still think we get a general idea of what actually occurred. However, i am sure there are some cases where we can't pull out the truth, but the majority of the time i think we get the main idea of what really took place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-87861011244390242092008-08-29T15:27:00.000-05:002008-08-29T15:27:00.000-05:00Alright that last bit was a little mean. But let m...Alright that last bit was a little mean. But let me put this in Calculus terms; If a person drives an average of 50 mph between 5:30 and 5:50, and drives an average of 60 mph between 5:40 and 5:55, you can't assume that the average speed between 5:30 and 5:40 is between 50 and 60 mph. You can approximate that it is, but can never KNOW that it is. The same concept applies to historyEl Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14898094029369562643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-62355193260936882592008-08-29T14:41:00.000-05:002008-08-29T14:41:00.000-05:00Alright, John, I'm calling you out. "But if you wa...Alright, John, I'm calling you out. "But if you want to analyze the book like you would a real-life historical account, you only have to disregard the clearly biased parts and think about the credible parts. Using the Tin Drum as a metaphor for why history is a construct, then, doesn't work except again under the flawed premises of postmodernism." What parts are clearly biased? If you want to analyze it like a real-life historical account, you have to remove ALL supernatural occurrences, including his glass shattering voice, his drumming, and about half of the entire novel. <BR/><BR/>Care to provide any examples of "better sources?" <BR/><BR/>"An attack on truth?" Post modernism doesn't attack truth, it merely questions our conceptions of the truth (not just history), which will eventually lead to a better understanding of the truth.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the length of my post - I just can't help how right I am.El Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14898094029369562643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-68963078338766519242008-08-29T14:19:00.000-05:002008-08-29T14:19:00.000-05:00baises occur everywhere, but that does not mean th...baises occur everywhere, but that does not mean that history is a construct.<BR/>events occured and history is the study of how, why and the aftereffects of the event. historiography is the interpritation of those events; what has happen is that history and historiography have become so intertwined such that it has become difficult to strip one away from the other.<BR/>Oskar interprits events into a construct that he could understand and we as unwitting readers believe him. Marquez uses the turbulent history of a Latin-American nation as am outlet for the strife in the Buendia family.<BR/>...but that's just how i see thingsAaron Nussdorfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07067571363326123274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-79718446498919292002008-08-29T07:20:00.000-05:002008-08-29T07:20:00.000-05:00for dean's objective history comment- i agree that...for dean's objective history comment- i agree that is sad that many times history is biased. after all as mrs. scandurro says, history is recored by the victor. also though i think that biased history is not always a bad thing. if you have opposing biased views recorded, then you can deduce a common history from them. also i think it is important to learn how different people felt about the same historical events. i think that dr. mooney should retell his historiography lecture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-1428413996007334892008-08-29T07:14:00.000-05:002008-08-29T07:14:00.000-05:00about mr. plainview's lying to ourselves comment- ...about mr. plainview's lying to ourselves comment- i completely agree that everyone lies to themselves from time to time. that is one reason why i take autobiographies with a large grain of salt. i think that our subconscious makes us look more favorable in our memories over time. it also blocks out painful ones sometimes too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-60326663137648189252008-08-28T23:43:00.000-05:002008-08-28T23:43:00.000-05:00I don't think postmodernism attacks truth-- rather...I don't think postmodernism attacks truth-- rather, it makes a statement on the nature of truth. I think it does attack the idea of objective, standard, consistent truth. I think it attacks the idea of a reality constant and identical for every person and everything; I think it takes into account the inconsistency of perception from one person to another. As far as truth and reality are concerned, <I>of course</I> they exist, but they are not, cannot, and will never be exactly the same for every single person. I'm no scientist, but I think even biology leads, in some ways, to that answer. (Everyone is structured slightly differently so that even colors might exist in slightly different hues from person to person; everyone is "wired" slightly different so that our thoughts are uniquely tuned by our own inner chemistry and the personal experiences which have shaped us alongside genetics).puddlewonderfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493944663078566264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-14649910391356165722008-08-28T23:12:00.000-05:002008-08-28T23:12:00.000-05:00"Just because understanding the bias can lead you ...<I>"Just because understanding the bias can lead you closer to the truth doesn't mean that it necessarily will. For instance, if we consider the bias of what the Romans wrote about Carthage when studying the Romans' accounts of Carthage's history, we still cannot infer any truths about Carthage's civilization. We can only infer the literal history that Carthage ultimately lost the war was razed."</I><BR/><BR/>You're right... some historical accounts simply aren't useful to us because they're too biased. Don't use those. Find some better sources to build your objective history.<BR/><BR/><I>"The Tin Drum does reflect post modernistic philosophy in that the reader has to make a decision on whether or not he/she believes the events actually happened."</I><BR/><BR/>You're right again. The Tin Drum is a postmodernist work, and a work of fiction - I'm not arguing against that. But if you want to analyze the book like you would a real-life historical account, you only have to disregard the clearly biased parts and think about the credible parts. Using the Tin Drum as a metaphor for why history is a construct, then, doesn't work except again under the flawed premises of postmodernism.<BR/><BR/><I>"I don't understand how you can say that "post modernism exists only in the context of its flawed premises." Which premises are flawed?"</I><BR/><BR/>Postmodernism can seem really complicated - and it is. But ultimately, it's an attack on the idea of truth.<BR/><BR/>This is the premise that is fundamentally wrong. There is such thing as truth, and reality, and an author - even if we have trouble interpreting these concepts at times.<BR/><BR/>Postmodernism can sometimes be an interesting way to look at things, and it's led to the creation of a lot of great art. Fight Club, for example, is awesome. But that doesn't make the school of thought that produced it any more correct.<BR/><BR/>Just because it has "ism" at the end of it doesn't make it smart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-35680859446288054662008-08-28T22:41:00.000-05:002008-08-28T22:41:00.000-05:00I have to agree with Michelle in the fact that I d...I have to agree with Michelle in the fact that I do not believe bias can ever be fully removed from literature (and life in general). While we do not realize it, everything that we are taught and surrounded by from the beginning is biased in its own way. Therefore, it is both unfair and unnecessary to completely ignore bias, as long as we recognize its presence when necessary.<BR/><BR/>P.S... The whole difference between bias/biased/biases has always confused me, so I apologize if I completely misused them and sounded like a moron.tmichalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05339337272098527708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-31223975093928194442008-08-28T22:07:00.000-05:002008-08-28T22:07:00.000-05:00But how's it possible to exact fact from fiction w...But how's it possible to exact fact from fiction when you're studying a document that is three hundred or a thousand years old. It could be some madman like Oscar completely fabricating his own history. It's not as simple as simply picking out the truth from the huge pool of falsehood.joel derbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754048394186201749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-28370694099072580842008-08-28T21:01:00.000-05:002008-08-28T21:01:00.000-05:00yes, i agree. I think history will always be sligh...yes, i agree. I think history will always be slightly (or greatly) butchered by the person narrating the story. There is no definitive right or wrong, but rather people must choose from history what is important in order to extract a significance from the events that took place.Ehrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00362383603936557316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-37205895706499551482008-08-28T20:25:00.000-05:002008-08-28T20:25:00.000-05:00i have to agree with john on the point that we mus...i have to agree with john on the point that we must take the history we are taught with a grain of salt and try to extract the truth from it. Because no matter how you look it the history we receive is biased to a certain degree and that will always be the case. We must just take what we are given, be happy that we even have historical information, and learn from it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-55770455727560551132008-08-28T20:06:00.000-05:002008-08-28T20:06:00.000-05:00I'm going to have to cast my vote with El Paco on ...I'm going to have to cast my vote with El Paco on this one-- I agree completely with what he said about <I>The Tin Drum</I> and history.<BR/><BR/>Also I think we need a new post on Fouceault so everyone else can begin to aim their postmodern bashing at our new French friend.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and Brandon-- I definitely think that personal histories are <I>totally</I> skewed. People always seem to have their own very specific perspective which vacillate between incredibly self-favoring to overly self-critical. I know, at least, that I do, and I think (read: hope) that it's only human. I would hate to admit how many times I've been put in a difficult position and then realized with awful guilt how I judged other people's actions so critically when they were in that same position, and then I find myself unable to do any better than they. All of my judgments about the events and people around me are based on my narrow perspective, which, I will admit, is sometimes in turn influenced by my own selfishness (with age, though, I am finding it easier to sometimes assume a very mild level of selflessness). <BR/><BR/>Occasionally I am given to reminiscing rather glumly on what the great pity of our narrow understanding. How often have we had drastic misunderstandings of our other peoples' motivations? Unless we are told (and even that requires full trust in the teller's honesty) what someone was thinking we never know the influences behind that person's decision. Furthermore, we <I>generally</I> tend to favor our own choices and actions and preferences, consciously and unconsciously. Obviously these biases will have a huge impact on our perception of our personal history. <BR/><BR/>Sorry about the long post. Unfortunately, I cannot justify its length with the assurance that it is the sole valid opinion (after all, it's only an opinion). I can only apologize for any inconvenience its length might cause.puddlewonderfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493944663078566264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-11675011456498636402008-08-28T16:29:00.000-05:002008-08-28T16:29:00.000-05:00Andrew has a good point. Just because we know that...Andrew has a good point. Just because we know that there is a bias, doesnt mean that it is a slight bias. Everything the person says could have a bias or they could just think outside of the culture. A person in Rome might not think like the general public, so we cant say that he is writing in that context.Dean Elazabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10602361089074537575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-33333598654577899332008-08-28T12:16:00.000-05:002008-08-28T12:16:00.000-05:00Just because understanding the bias can lead you c...Just because understanding the bias can lead you closer to the truth doesn't mean that it necessarily will. For instance, if we consider the bias of what the Romans wrote about Carthage when studying the Romans' accounts of Carthage's history, we still cannot infer any truths about Carthage's civilization. We can only infer the literal history that Carthage ultimately lost the war was razed. <BR/><BR/>I don't understand how you can say that "post modernism exists only in the context of its flawed premises." Which premises are flawed? You make a very bold claim with little evidence to back it. If anything, The Tin Drum does reflect post modernistic philosophy in that the reader has to make a decision on whether or not he/she believes the events actually happened. However, the reader can't effectively make such a decision because he/she has no other evidence. Take into account that in fictional literature, anything can happen; it doesn't have to be realistic, and that's something that I think everyone's been overlooking. <BR/><BR/>I guess my point is that even by taking into account the bias of a history, you can't necessarily approximate truths - you can only analyze the events within their context of literal history and make an educated guess of what you think happened.<BR/><BR/>John, I wouldn't be so bold as to say that post modernism only works within its "false premises." I, too, dislike the philosophy, but you have to recognize its truthsEl Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14898094029369562643noreply@blogger.com