What good is studying/researching/doing history?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A philosopher moaning about how useless history is

Where's a good chartered accountant when you need one?

At Lion Taming School, Berkshire?

[FBM]

A philosopher moaning about how useless history is

History and philosophy are pretty much equally useless for putting meat on the table, unless you take it up as a profession. And I'm not saying they're not worthwhile endeavors, only that their value is mostly as hobbies, intellectual exercise, etc. Like learning to play the lute or something.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A philosopher moaning about how useless history is

History and philosophy are pretty much equally useless for putting meat on the table, unless you take it up as a profession. And I'm not saying they're not worthwhile endeavors, only that their value is mostly as hobbies, intellectual exercise, etc. Like learning to play the lute or something.

History teaches us where to hunt, and when to plant. That's putting meat on the table in my book.

[FBM]

A philosopher moaning about how useless history is

History and philosophy are pretty much equally useless for putting meat on the table, unless you take it up as a profession. And I'm not saying they're not worthwhile endeavors, only that their value is mostly as hobbies, intellectual exercise, etc. Like learning to play the lute or something.

History teaches us where to hunt, and when to plant. That's putting meat on the table in my book.

Memory does that, not professional history. There's a big difference between grandpaw's stories and what the professional historian does, no?

[Hermit]

History and philosophy are pretty much equally useless for putting meat on the table, unless you take it up as a profession. And I'm not saying they're not worthwhile endeavors, only that their value is mostly as hobbies, intellectual exercise, etc. Like learning to play the lute or something.

You must be kidding. Without history we don't know where we're coming from and won't have a clue where we might be heading. Sure, it's not directly related to our immediate needs, but it sure helps avoiding those in power from pulling the wool over our eyes. "He who controls the past, controls the future." If you want to accelerate our slide into an Orwellian dystopia, or Huxley's brave new world, ignore the study of history.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Memory does that, not professional history. There's a big difference between grandpaw's stories and what the professional historian does, no?

It's the same thing when you have a kid with a .22 rifle and a man who can tell you where the buffalo will be when the snow is the deepest. The man makes his living by knowing his history.

As far as today's "professional historian", they provide the context of our times.

[FBM]

History and philosophy are pretty much equally useless for putting meat on the table, unless you take it up as a profession. And I'm not saying they're not worthwhile endeavors, only that their value is mostly as hobbies, intellectual exercise, etc. Like learning to play the lute or something.

You must be kidding. Without history we don't know where we're coming from and won't have a clue where we might be heading. Sure, it's not directly related to our immediate needs, but it sure helps avoiding those in power from pulling the wool over our eyes. "He who controls the past, controls the future." If you want to accelerate our slide into an Orwellian dystopia, or Huxley's brave new world, ignore the study of history.

This much I can agree with. As long as historians aren't wedded to any political agenda, they can serve to prevent or combat tyranny. Even so, at the end of the day, the guy with the stronger army wins on his home turf, and sometimes on others' turfs, no? I mean, that's how the US functions, anyway. So, maybe "He who controls the armaments controls the present, controls the future" is more accurate? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's the way things tend to go. The victors writing history, and all.

A little more: My understanding of mainstream history is that it can be apporached as a) linear, b) progressive or c) progressive change (non-teleological) or in some cases, d) cyclical. Which it is depends on the historian's perspective and chosen approach, is it not? Is any one of them more 'true' than the other? If so, I don't see how.

[Hermit]

the guy with the stronger army...

...gets it how?

Once a sufficient number of people study history sufficiently, they'll wake up to the fact that the vast majority of humans are pawns to be moved about at the whim of rulers, be those rulers tin-pot dictators or giant corporations.

You can learn from history. Goering certainly did: "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Also, avoiding the adoption of political agendas is impossible. Have a look at Fritz Stern's Varieties of History.

[FBM]

...gets it how?

Toeing the party line, this or that Machiavellian tactic?

Once a sufficient number of people study history sufficiently, they'll wake up to the fact that the vast majority of humans are pawns to be moved about at the whim of rulers, be those rulers tin-pot dictators or giant corporations.

True enough, but when are "a sufficient number of people" going to stop ogling Lady Gaga, et al, long enough to do that? Realistically, not hypotheticall, I mean.

You can learn from history. Goering certainly did: "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

What I think I see is politicians learning from Goering's words how better to achieve their agendas, not the masses learning to study history. I could be accused of pessimism here, admittedly.

Also, avoiding the adoption of political agendas is impossible. Have a look at Fritz Stern's Varieties of History.

I'll have to look that one up. Sounds like good reading.

[LaMont Cranston]

Why single out history as having such little value? If we're going to look at subjects that are suspect, what about philosophy, economics, psychology, sociology, literature and on and on. Information about any subject area is only as good as what we do with that information, and, in my experience, nobody approaches study and research without some kind of cultural bias.

What would you suggest that people study and research, the sciences? As a young man, I was a science (particularly chemistry) and math whiz, and I started college as a chem major. When I actually looked at what chemists did, I started changing majors, and, yes, I eventually ended up a history major with an English minor. Hey, to get a degree, you eventually had to declare a major in something, and sex, drugs and rock n' roll looked like more fun anyway. In looking back, I can't say that I've ever regreted not becoming a chemist.

Let's face it, history and many other subjects are not exact sciences. Much of science is hardly an exact science. The scientific method may be a pure thing, in and of itself, but when it gets into the hands of people, it is subject to human error, outside influences, backstabbing colleagues who steal your research and a host of other problems. Would you prefer a world full of scientists who have no sense of history, culture and tradition?

Many of us enjoy studying and researching history just for its entertainment value, and there's something to be said for having some knowledge of history to qualify as a "well rounded person" in the real world. Do people learn from history? Some do, and some don't, but, regardless of what you think of it, history is going to be with us for a long time.

[Azathoth]

Lamont is talking sense

[Hermit]

Once a sufficient number of people study history sufficiently, they'll wake up to the fact that the vast majority of humans are pawns to be moved about at the whim of rulers, be those rulers tin-pot dictators or giant corporations.

True enough, but when are "a sufficient number of people" going to stop ogling Lady Gaga, et al, long enough to do that? Realistically, not hypotheticall, I mean.

And you "don't understand why it's considered to be anything more than a (legitimate) hobby, and why it's a part of core curricula, rather than an elective subject"? If it's pointless, why not restrict education to subjects that are necessary to produce factory hands, engineers, and skills that are necessary to maintain the superstructures necessary for each ruling oligarchy's means to keep ruling over its industrial and military cannon-fodder? Come to think of it, what do you think you are actually doing when you teach English to Koreans?

[Hermit]

Lamont is talking sense

Faaaaaaaarking hell. Yes, he did. First paragraph, and the first sentence of the second para at least. The rest is mainly business as usual, though. Still, I am amazed.

[charlou]

I'm not amazed. Good post, LaMont.

Once a sufficient number of people study history sufficiently, they'll wake up to the fact that the vast majority of humans are pawns to be moved about at the whim of rulers, be those rulers tin-pot dictators or giant corporations.

True enough, but when are "a sufficient number of people" going to stop ogling Lady Gaga, et al, long enough to do that? Realistically, not hypotheticall, I mean.

You seem to be implying this topic arises (at least in part) from the disinterest you're discerning among students, or among society generally?

History is an integral part in everything we know, everything we do, and everything we will know and do. The more we we know about history, the more we know what does and doesn't work. We are inductivist turkeys by nature, so the greater our knowledge base the better off we are. We haven't progressed to where we are by ignoring history.

[FBM]

Why single out history as having such little value? If we're going to look at subjects that are suspect, what about philosophy, economics, psychology, sociology, literature and on and on. Information about any subject area is only as good as what we do with that information, and, in my experience, nobody approaches study and research without some kind of cultural bias.

What would you suggest that people study and research, the sciences? As a young man, I was a science (particularly chemistry) and math whiz, and I started college as a chem major. When I actually looked at what chemists did, I started changing majors, and, yes, I eventually ended up a history major with an English minor. Hey, to get a degree, you eventually had to declare a major in something, and sex, drugs and rock n' roll looked like more fun anyway. In looking back, I can't say that I've ever regreted not becoming a chemist.

Let's face it, history and many other subjects are not exact sciences. Much of science is hardly an exact science. The scientific method may be a pure thing, in and of itself, but when it gets into the hands of people, it is subject to human error, outside influences, backstabbing colleagues who steal your research and a host of other problems. Would you prefer a world full of scientists who have no sense of history, culture and tradition?

Many of us enjoy studying and researching history just for its entertainment value, and there's something to be said for having some knowledge of history to qualify as a "well rounded person" in the real world. Do people learn from history? Some do, and some don't, but, regardless of what you think of it, history is going to be with us for a long time.

A science major learing about the developments in the field is not comparable to a historian doing history. It's just learing science. History is not mere chronology; it's interpreting records and evidence into a meaningful story, an attempt to explain what is in terms of what was. In its most ambitious form, it tries to predict what will be based on what is/was. I do value history as a legitimate hobby or intellectual exercise. I'm quite interested in certain areas of history. What I'm asking is whether or not history is actually, IRL, useful, except for anything more than entertainment. I don't see much evidence that the study of history has guided us to a better way of life. I'm not convinced - yet - that it acutally, IRL, can. I don't want to see it disappear, I'm just thinking that statements such as 'Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it' and the like are just rhetoric. People study history, but how often do they use it to make wiser decisions? If it happens very often, it's hidden from me.