装B年龄不能错过。记录生活势在必得~

版权声明：转载时请以超链接形式标明文章原始出处和作者信息及本声明
http://bash.blogbus.com/logs/16682463.html

苏格拉底曰， “人的知识就像一个圆圈,圈外的空白是代表他未知的知识。人的知识越多,那个圈子接触的空白就越多。”

可是，他没告诉我们  那个圈是否完美

 ～我要哲学一把 ～

做史学家大概是我近期最清晰的目标；年老的长辈们也不止一次表示出担忧，这也没打消我的热情

但有个来势更凶猛的想法从认识论课侵蚀了我的中坚不屈——历史是不可能没有个人意识的注入，不可能完全客观。

就像Winston听到O'Brien的一番极权理论时的被击败一样，我沉默了。

最近老师布置的作业，题目是：
获取历史的手段是哪些？随着记录技术的进步，我们对过去到底有没有更好的了解？

遂推荐我们读《Man is the Measure》，哲学小书。
Gav在我读之前就说，“读后务必告诉我 是不是比以前更晕了？”
光是干掉一章（15：The Study of History），我的确更晕了

读的时候从抵触到了接受；MSN签名：“如今大多的哲学理论，都有相同性质：人是懒惰的；总结总比细细体验要容易。”

作者最后的总结让我又燃起了学历史的兴趣：既然所有史学家的研究都会被自己当前的意识所影响，那我也就不必再顾虑什么了。

底下是一些我喜欢的引言，有空翻译（这周末实在忙，下周就BEIMUN了……T-T）

Stories about the dead are inspired by the curiosity of the living. That is why history is being rewritten constantly—not simply because new facts discovered, but because it is “always written wrong.” The past is in a steady process of imaginative re-interpretation and reconstruction; we want it to be meaningful to us in the present. 

In sciences, the problem lies in the determination of facts. No historian can examine or record all that occurs, even within a short time period…No newspaper can publish all the news; some one must decide whether or not it’s “fit to print.”

没有一个报纸能把所有的新闻都报道了。总会有个人去给那些信息设上标准，进行筛检。

 The function of the historian is akin to that of the painter and not of the photographic camera; to discover and set forth, to single pit and stress that which is the nature of the thing and not to reproduce indiscriminately all that meets the eye.

But even the photographer must select, focus, arrange, emphasize, organize, evaluate, compose, define and omit; he, too, searches for the “nature of the thing.” 

Remember that “the past” does not literally exist at all; only the present exist. The past is not a datum given to us; it is inferred from present evidence.  

What if Kafka never lived? Each writer thus creates his own predecessors: no one ever is, all on his own, a predecessor.  

The metaphysics of absolute idealism regards all events, present and past, as concatenated into a seamless web that cannot—without distortion—be analyzed into discrete events. 

Can a totalitarian government rewrite the past as a matter if political expedience? 

The past in Dewey’s phrase, is always “the past-of-the-present.” 

There may be more than one “true” account of the past; but neither is our physics the only conceivable description of the world. Just as science is self-correcting, so different historical accounts may be confronted, compared, and contrasted; emphasis and bias may be manifest; evidence may be scrutinized; arguments may be evaluated. The alternative to absolutism does not have to be nihilism; just because we don’t have certainty about the past does not follow that anything goes. 

The basic forms of almost all socio-cultural phenomena are limited in their number; hence they inevitably recur in time, in rhythmic fashion. 

But physicalistic and telluric factors, although necessary conditions for civilization, are not sufficient. Inland people will probably not invent canoes, but coastal people likewise may not. 

 Marxism is not the only theory of economic determinism. Charles Beard’s interpretation of how the American Constitution was adopted is another example. The modes of economic life and the relations of production are deemed to explain the legal, political, intellectual, religious, and other “ideological” aspects of a society and its history. 

Carlyle said, “The History of the World is but the Biography of Great Men.” Emerson and James also found the motive power of history to be the appearance of superior individuals.  

How are we to evaluate these philosophies of history? As ma be expected, none of them is entirely true, none is entirely false. They are frameworks for collecting and organizing data; like metaphysical theories or like psychologist’s models, they succeed if they fructify our self-understanding. Thus, they may not be equally satisfactory even when they are equally accurate.

 Raymond Aron observes thatWhen an Empire begins to break up, the blame is ascribed indifferently to those who for too long refused to reform it, and those who, by permitting reform, accelerated the course of events, The facts never decide the issue between the opposed theories.  鲁迅啊鲁迅，你并不是异类。  

Macaulay regards history as a branch of literature.

好多相同点啊。玄学，翻译及历史。

下面是我被激起的扯淡欲

没有形成论文的解构，只是想到什么写什么。

I agree with the author of Man is the Measure that history is similar to metaphysics: through the communications of scholars, there have been more and more reasonable theories—trying to explain the subject—established. All of them had each pros and cons. After being controlled by totalitarian governments, historians without a bias heart now realize history can never be generated to facts. “At a particular time the facts may have been that in Belgium many men were running around, shouting, fighting and dying; the historian later designates this the decisive Battle of Waterloo.”  

Is it possible that people sometimes are willing to be ignorant? When everyone thought that something was the definite solution to history (“winners write history”) and to science (the sun revolves around the Earth), they were satisfied and proud with themselves. Now that we know some things can never be certain, is it a good sign? It is essential that people realize that there is no un-biased history. Historians have all--to some extent—realized this.  

This applies to that big circle theory of Socrates: the more you know, the more you are exposed to the unknown. The more humans are aware of the several thousands of years we have accomplished, the less we know about ourselves.

Just like when we get to know more people, we are not limited to their religion or political stance anymore as long as there are open to variety.