Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thats a big tweenkie.


And remember, believe it or not tweekenies do in fact have a shelf life.

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.

A pointless list of pseudo-philosophical claptrap.

Tell me then, at which point in history did we have the freaking internet? The human race has moved out of the cycle of history, forging our own history. There are a damned sight many things, and I'm not just talking about technology, that exist today that haven't existed before in human society.

Atlantis had internet. But it was just a bunch of porn and nonsen....wait a minute!

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.

A pointless list of pseudo-philosophical claptrap.

Tell me then, at which point in history did we have the freaking internet? The human race has moved out of the cycle of history, forging our own history. There are a damned sight many things, and I'm not just talking about technology, that exist today that haven't existed before in human society.

I rarely find myself support you, but there is truth in this.

Compare the 2000s recession to the 1930s recession - one of them caused a catastrophic depression, the other didn't. The difference being, in the 21st century politicians adhered to Keynes' teachings, borrowing money on the bond market to stimulate domestic demand, as well as, in general, avoiding protectionism (rumours that the bank of england printed money to devalue the pount are entirely unsubstantiated, of course).

Also just look at war - invading and occupying another sovereign nation is more or less impossible. You can no longer march into another country, set up a friendly puppet and let them get on with it. Nationalism has changed humanity forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:
Atlantis had internet. But it was just a bunch of porn and nonsen....wait a minute!

I know you're being tongue in cheek, but less than 1% of the internet is porn. Most of it is commercial.

We also have changed, physically speaking . As a species, we are taller and stronger than ever before, for example. And that's just referring to changes within the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species-- not even getting into the difference between humanity and our genetic ancestors. We haven't gone back, and we aren't going back. There's no biological impetus to go back. Even in mass extinction scenarios, life doesn't start a cycle over again, it finds a way to overcome th extinction scenario and continues growing.

Technology has improved, consistently-- not cyclically, but irreversibly. Human knowledge and understanding is growing, not cyclical. And our society itself has changed, as well-- our societies look very little like what they did so long ago.

History might appear to be in cycles to someone who takes a very shallow, superficial view of it. But it's a worthless viewpoint. Humanity may have a problem with exceptionalism (IE, I know this happened in the past, but it won't happen to me), but we actually DO learn from our mistakes. It's one of the most important aspects of science, in fact it's probably by far the most important one.

Testify wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:
Atlantis had internet. But it was just a bunch of porn and nonsen....wait a minute!

I know you're being tongue in cheek, but less than 1% of the internet is porn. Most of it is commercial.

It's actually 4% of sites and 13% of internet searches, with the most popular being livejasmin which accounts for 2.5% of all internet users in a month. Though I dont know how much actual bandwidth is used for porn as we don't have any data on downloads or p2p

I pray you are all right...for all our sakes.

Having read through this whole thread, I have a feeling Tadashi would get on extremely well with O'Brein...

Tadashi wrote:The Last Man gives in to the futility, and accepts his/her place. The Ubermensch accepts the futility, but not his/her place, and continues to seek and break his/her limits regardless of the difficulty of doing so.

That's about how I've always read it. (hence why I think it works so nicely in tandem with the Hagakure). The Ubermensch embarks on an endless quest in striving for a level of perfection that cannot be attained: but it is the path and the struggle that defines the Ubermensch, setting him apart from the complacency of the Last Man.

purplefood wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description

No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.

Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.

Probably not...
I mean we haven't reintroduced slavery or repealed women's rights.
no one has discovered electricity recently...

This entire thread started as a discussion about the slavery and indentured servitude forced upon citizens as a result of the USA's prison-industrial complex which encourages recidivism in order to constantly feed institutions like Unicor.

Also, there are many attempts, to varying degrees of success, to repeal women's rights.

And we search for new energy sources all the time.

Dakkadan wrote:Let's say a Twinkie represents the normal amount of phylosphical psycho-babble in the Dakka Dakka forums. Based on this thread, it would be a Twinkie... thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.

Your inability to spell seriously undercuts any wit you might derive from quoting Ghostbusters.

azazel the cat wrote:

Tadashi wrote:The Last Man gives in to the futility, and accepts his/her place. The Ubermensch accepts the futility, but not his/her place, and continues to seek and break his/her limits regardless of the difficulty of doing so.

That's about how I've always read it. (hence why I think it works so nicely in tandem with the Hagakure). The Ubermensch embarks on an endless quest in striving for a level of perfection that cannot be attained: but it is the path and the struggle that defines the Ubermensch, setting him apart from the complacency of the Last Man.

It doesn't matter how hard it is, the Ubermensch will continue his/her endless and paradoxical pursuit of perfection. By breaking his/her limits, he/she becomes perfect, but at the same time, he/her becomes imperfect, because new limits are created. And so the quest continues, to break those new limits, and those that come after, and so on...

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description

No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.

Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.

Melissia wrote:
History might appear to be in cycles to someone who takes a very shallow, superficial view of it. But it's a worthless viewpoint. Humanity may have a problem with exceptionalism (IE, I know this happened in the past, but it won't happen to me), but we actually DO learn from our mistakes. It's one of the most important aspects of science, in fact it's probably by far the most important one.

Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?

xole wrote:

Look, I'm sorry if you majored in history.

Please don't associate actual history with what's being disseminated in this thread. It makes E.H. Carr cry.


The sad thing was that I came into this thread actually wanting to post about the original topic.

Azazel the cat wrote:
Your inability to spell seriously undercuts any wit you might derive from quoting Ghostbusters.

Hey Smarty pants I'm typing this from my phone. Think about that before you judge my twinky quote. I have large thumbs man! LARGE THUMBS!! Also I don't believe I can derive wit from my own statements. You can but I don't believe I can. I mean I might be able to derive wit from your statements. But you couldn't in turn do the same for yourself. Of course all of this misses my point about how dumb armchair philosophy sounds in general.

Ketara wrote:

xole wrote:

Look, I'm sorry if you majored in history.

Please don't associate actual history with what's being disseminated in this thread. It makes E.H. Carr cry.


The sad thing was that I came into this thread actually wanting to post about the original topic.

It's just something I say to people when they say the whole "history repeats itself" thing.

There was an original topic?

Ketara wrote:
Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?

Huh. And here I was, thinking that you could define 'history' as just one bloody thing after another...

Dakkadan wrote:

Azazel the cat wrote:
Your inability to spell seriously undercuts any wit you might derive from quoting Ghostbusters.

Hey Smarty pants I'm typing this from my phone. Think about that before you judge my twinky quote. I have large thumbs man! LARGE THUMBS!! Also I don't believe I can derive wit from my own statements. You can but I don't believe I can. I mean I might be able to derive wit from your statements. But you couldn't in turn do the same for yourself. Of course all of this misses my point about how dumb armchair philosophy sounds in general.

Yeah, that should've read "...we might derive...". I'll quietly note the irony of my post, and begin to take my foot out of my mouth. I, too, have large thumbs... although that still does not explain how you accidentally typed in a phonetic spelling, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and merely assume you were screaming "damn you, autocorrect!" after posting!
semi-
But you really must explain to me what kind of philosophy it is that you are accustomed to, as I'm not really aware of any kind that cannot be discussed from the comfort of an armchair. Such is its nature.

azazel the cat wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?

Huh. And here I was, thinking that you could define 'history' as just one bloody thing after another...

his·to·ry (hst-r)
n. pl. his·to·ries
1.
a. A usually chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings.
b. A formal written account of related natural phenomena: a history of volcanoes.
c. A record of a patient's medical background.
d. An established record or pattern of behavior: an inmate with a history of substance abuse.
2. The branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events: "History has a long-range perspective" (Elizabeth Gurley Flynn).
3.
a. The past events relating to a particular thing: The history of their rivalry is full of intrigue.
b. The aggregate of past events or human affairs: basic tools used throughout history.
c. An interesting past: a house with history.
d. Something that belongs to the past: Their troubles are history now.
e. Slang One that is no longer worth consideration: Why should we worry about him? He's history!
4. A drama based on historical events: the histories of Shakespeare.

That should clear things up...

azazel the cat wrote:
But you really must explain to me what kind of philosophy it is that you are accustomed to, as I'm not really aware of any kind that cannot be discussed from the comfort of an armchair. Such is its nature.

I don't think he has any.

Tadashi wrote:
That should clear things up...

Thank you for enlightening me. The substantial discussion on the nature of history, raging from Elton, to Carr, to Marx have all been overthrown by your brilliant and masterly summation. No doubt they'll be around personally to award your Nobel peace prize first thing in the morning.
/sarcasm.

Tip:- I actually know what I'm talking about here. Go and pick up Jordanova's 'History in Practice' and get a basic summary of the field you're shoving your foot into before trying to argue it. I know I'm coming off as slightly snarky here(apologies for that I guess), but people arguing loudly and completely incorrectly with each other on something neither knows anything about has always irritated me slightly.

azazel the cat wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?

Huh. And here I was, thinking that you could define 'history' as just one bloody thing after another...

The dictionary will be sufficient.

Tadashi wrote:The dictionary will be sufficient.

Then your knowledge of the subject will always be comparable to that of someone who can be safely regarded as entirely ignorant on the affair. I always find it a shame when people close off their minds to learning.

That I can live with though, as I expect Melissia will probably care at least enough to briefly scan a book review or something and find out more, so I guess this wasn't a complete waste of time.

Ketara wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Does no-one around here understand that history and past events are not the same thing?

Huh. And here I was, thinking that you could define 'history' as just one bloody thing after another...

Spoiler:

Those of us with History degrees must maintain our wit, lest we just end up telling stories that never end.

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:The dictionary will be sufficient.

Then your knowledge of the subject will always be comparable to that of someone who can be safely regarded as entirely ignorant on the affair. I always find it a shame when people close off their minds to learning.

That I can live with though, as I expect Melissia will probably care at least enough to briefly scan a book review or something and find out more, so I guess this wasn't a complete waste of time.

Meh...I'm a scientist...the past only means as much as its contributions/uses...if it has no use for me, then it should just be forgotten.

Man, that sounds almost like the caricature of scientists often used in Post apocalyptic stories (or even by Malcolm in Jurassic Park).

Tadashi wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:The dictionary will be sufficient.

Then your knowledge of the subject will always be comparable to that of someone who can be safely regarded as entirely ignorant on the affair. I always find it a shame when people close off their minds to learning.

That I can live with though, as I expect Melissia will probably care at least enough to briefly scan a book review or something and find out more, so I guess this wasn't a complete waste of time.

Meh...I'm a scientist...the past only means as much to me what it can contribute to the future...if it has no use for me, then it should just be forgotten.

Then for a parallel, I direct you to Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' for a comparable postmodernist equivalent to Carr.

I do not understand the need for all this justification of history, whether of world events or of scientific progress...at the end of the day, the former is judged by the dominant powers, and the latter by the results. Nothing else truly matters...its consequentialist, but it is the truth.

Tadashi wrote:I do not understand the need for all this justification of history, whether of world events or of scientific progress...at the end of the day, the former is judged by the dominant powers, and the latter by the results. Nothing else truly matters...its consequentialist, but it is the truth.

No. That is an opinion entirely empty of substance, dressed up to look philosophical in an attempt to make it sound like it means something. Which it doesn't.

Read some books, and you'll have an opinion where there's something to debate with. Rather than telling me that 1+1 =0, because the government controls what you think, and querying why we ever bother thinking about anything.

This is one of those times where I miss Dogma.

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:I do not understand the need for all this justification of history, whether of world events or of scientific progress...at the end of the day, the former is judged by the dominant powers, and the latter by the results. Nothing else truly matters...its consequentialist, but it is the truth.

No. That is an opinion entirely empty of substance, dressed up to look philosophical in an attempt to make it sound like it means something. Which it doesn't.

Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust, and why First World countries and multi-national companies can pillage Third World countries despite all the outcry without fear of true reprisal, or when scientific principles and technological innovations that are initially condemned at first use become accepted in time.

Tadashi wrote:
Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust

What you're attempting there is a vague derivation on a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, who is attributed as having said, '“History is written by the winners.”

You'll note Napoleon won most of his battles personally. He isn't generally regarded as particularly just today. See what I did there? I'm sure you can extrapolate the rest of the reasoning that must follow on from that.

and why First World countries and multi-national companies can pillage Third World countries despite all the outcry without fear of true reprisal

Not sure what this has to do with anything, least of all History. Way to bring in pointless highly emotive stuff that completely reinforces what you're saying.

, or when scientific principles and technological innovations that are initially condemned at first use become accepted in time.

The first even vaguely related thing to anything I've ever said, and I get the feeling it was by accident. The answer to this though, is contained with the book I recommended before, Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. Seriously, read it. It's all about the changing of scientific paradigms, and was the first publication to come up with the concept.

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust

What you're attempting there is a vague derivation on a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, who is attributed as having said, '“History is written by the winners.”

You'll note Napoleon won most of his battles personally. He isn't generally regarded as particularly just today. See what I did there? I'm sure you can extrapolate the rest of the reasoning that must follow on from that.

Yes...but America is. Guess who's the dominant military power at the moment?

and why First World countries and multi-national companies can pillage Third World countries despite all the outcry without fear of true reprisal

Not sure what this has to do with anything, least of all History. Way to bring in pointless highly emotive stuff that completely reinforces what you're saying.
.

The world is consequentalist...it doesn't matter whether what you do is right and wrong, if enough people (or the right ones) think you're right, then matter how much other people make noise, nothing will change. That's just how twisted the world is.

Tadashi wrote:
Yes...but America is. Guess who's the dominant military power at the moment?

And surprisingly enough, current affairs publications and the vast majority of history journals and publications can be critical of America! It's almost as if the Government doesn't vet everything that's published across the world for stuff they don't like.....wait.
Follow the reasoning along past that point though, and you may come to realise that 'winners' come and go. Governments rarely make history, and even when they do and enforce it through diktat, other people write history. And then when that Government is gone, historians go back and re-evaluate the history of that era. And revise. And challenge.

History is a creation of historians, that we tend to hope has a basis in past affairs. History is a selective cherry picking of assumed facts under a suspect methodology based upon what the historian wants to look at and drive as their agenda.

It's still tremendously good fun to do though.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're fiction writers, but we're far from a science. Then again, if you pick up that book by Thomas Kuhn I keep recommending, you'll discover not even science is a science.

The world is consequentalist...it doesn't matter whether what you do is right and wrong, if enough people (or the right ones) think you're right, then matter how much other people make noise, nothing will change. That's just how twisted the world is.

Irrelevant teenage bulltwaddle.

MrDwhitey wrote:Man, that sounds almost like the caricature of scientists often used in Post apocalyptic stories (or even by Malcolm in Jurassic Park).

There's actually a philosophical trend that pretty much sums his point of view ; hypermodernism. The cultural landscape is seen as cluttered with artefacts of the past that don't have much current value since the context of the past was 'poorer' than ours. What matters is the information value of any cultural factoid, which 'decays' with time.

Not many authors to it's name... It's pretty much ((disgust with postmodernism) + (theory of communicational agency a la Habermas))

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
Yes...but America is. Guess who's the dominant military power at the moment?

And surprisingly enough, current affairs publications and the vast majority of history journals and publications can be critical of America!It's almost as if the Government doesn't vet everything that's published across the world for stuff they don't like.....wait.
Follow the reasoning along past that point though, and you may come to realise that 'winners' come and go. Governments rarely make history, and even when they do and enforce it through diktat, other people write history. And then when that Government is gone, historians go back and re-evaluate the history of that era. And revise. And challenge.

History is a creation of historians, that we tend to hope has a basis in past affairs. History is a selective cherry picking of assumed facts under a suspect methodology based upon what the historian wants to look at and drive as their agenda.

It's still tremendously good fun to do though.

Some things are better left forgotten...

The world is consequentalist...it doesn't matter whether what you do is right and wrong, if enough people (or the right ones) think you're right, then matter how much other people make noise, nothing will change. That's just how twisted the world is.

Irrelevant teenage bulltwaddle.

Reality is harsh in the Third World...not that you would understand, having a relatively easy life in the First World.

Tadashi wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
Oh really? Then I suppose you can tell me why only victors decide who is just and unjust

What you're attempting there is a vague derivation on a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, who is attributed as having said, '“History is written by the winners.”

You'll note Napoleon won most of his battles personally. He isn't generally regarded as particularly just today. See what I did there? I'm sure you can extrapolate the rest of the reasoning that must follow on from that.

Yes...but America is. Guess who's the dominant military power at the moment?

Considering that this thread is about someone suing the US prison system for slavery, I don't think the argument can be put forth that the US is considered just.

A lot of its policies during the 20th century were decidedly unjust and the fallout from those policies is still there in the populations who endured them.