History vs. Fiction

[jolly]

> > > No, I don't think we agree because I'm suggesting that history simply>  be presented as what we now hold to be verified evidence yet open to > discussion, examination and more information and analysis. That's what I think too.>  I'm not>  suggesting that the poor maligned historians are spouting "T" ruth.But don't you think that in many cases they're trying to tell the truthas best they can ascertain it. They don't pretend to be spouting thewhole truth of course. >   Them's your words and I suspect that's why you're disillusioned>  with history teachers; there was no Santa Claus.I'm definitely not disillusioned about history teachers. Love 'em.> > Nevertheless, you are suggesting that you know the "T"ruth and I think that>  you ought to print that package up and look for a publisher. I'd be>  interested - you never can tell.I think I know a few things that are true even though all knowledge issubject to revision. I know who Columbus was and who he definitelywasn't. I know the
 truth about Bush lies.> > It's really too bad you were apparently taught that Columbus was next to God.>  I sure wasn't and I'm probably older than a lot of you here.I don't remember being taught anything remotely like that.>  In grade school>  I learned about the Indian genocide (and small pox blankets) from a very early>  age. I was told about labor unions and yellow journalism and a whole lot of>  negative things about the US and its leaders. (I had a great 6th grade>  teacher!) I also learned a lot of good things. It never occurred to me>  that all this was a closed book now and that I had learned the "T"ruth.Great, but who was talking about any of this? Not me.>  > > Are you also disillusioned with your 5th grade science teacher for not>  teaching you about black holes and quarks and string theory?No. It was 1937. We'd only recently learned about electrons, protons andneutrons.>  Think of > where you'd be now if you'd known about that!I'd have published it and gotten a Nobel.> 
 Did they omit important>  information and tell you lies?No doubt, they were simple school teachers.> Do we need a Howard Zinn of science? (lol)Eeek! What a dreadful thought. Shame on you, Bek.

 

Obviously  there are big contextual 

differences between the aesthetic realm of 

fiction and literature and the empirical one of history, 

yet empirical scholarship (whose "truths" or facts are 

subjected to some degree of Popperian falsifiability, whereas fiction is not) 

is subject to continual revision, and thus

a complete view of historical "truth" obviously may be very difficult 

to establish,  though not impossible. Of course it may be altered.

For instance when it was discovered Thomas Jefferson fathered a child 

with a black  slave  Sally Hemmings, the perception of 

Jefferson was altered, rather substantially.  And obviously our perception of historical figures and the 

events they cause (directly or indirectly) is dependent on view regarding agency, intentionality, and that old chestnut, objective ethics.

E.g. A materialist view of history (reducing the role of human "intentionality", and seeing humans as primates (though ones with terrifying dazzling skills such as 

the ability to build Messerschmidt 109s and write GR) will have more difficulties in pinpointing "evil."

What criteria allows one to determine whether the nazis are supremely evil and diabolical, 

or improperly conditioned, deviant organisms in a threatening environment. I think GR does deal with this 

issue (sort of in Cliffsnotes jargon, the consequences 

to traditional ethics or humanism of a social determinist or behaviorist viewpoint) in the character of Pointsman, 

but Pynchon seems to have nearly a catholic attitude towards human responsibility, for better or worse...   







		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20041024/e4e1a1b3/attachment.html>