Am I the only one who hates historicism??

slant

slant

Capitalist pig
Donor
MBTI
None
This is mainly a rant thread. But I was journaling and a big piece clicked in my head just now.

I've been going on a lot of nice dates with INTPs but despite our shared intellect and general on paper compatibility I always leave those interactions feeling peeved and disappointed.

I was so puzzled about why for quite a spell. Then I realized something. They're super into history and mostly like talking about history. I would try to engage them in a hypothetical future conversation and they would reference real events that happened in the past as a way to construct their hypotheticals and I'm sitting there like

NO! COME UP WITH YOUR OWN IDEA!

anyways that's the context of this realization.

But yeah, ever since I read Karl Poppers "the poverty of historicism" I've not been a big fan of focusing too much on the past as a way to predict the future or even just as an interesting discussion. I'm more interested in how the past relates to the present or more importantly the future and don't like to "predict" based on pre determined models, instead, I envision something totally new.

Anyone else ever bothered by people really fixated on the past? Whether it be history of the world or just their own past. Some people seem to be super stuck, or at least, for a future envisioning person it *appears* like being stuck.
 
Yeah, as we get older I think the tendency to be fixated on the past is a natural phenomenon.

I don't have a hard time with this yet because while I'm fixated on getting results in the future, I use my past experiences to "reach" forward.

If one isn't practically using their knowledge and experience to better themselves and their life, what they've learned is useless.
 
slant said:
I would try to engage them in a hypothetical future conversation and they would reference real events that happened in the past as a way to construct their hypotheticals and I'm sitting there like

NO! COME UP WITH YOUR OWN IDEA!
Click to expand...
Just sounds like you don't like evidence, but in any case what you described isn't 'historicism'.

Also, those guys probably did 'come up with their own idea', but then read some things and realised that it already had a name.

What are you arguing against, exactly?
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Just sounds like you don't like evidence, but in any case what you described isn't 'historicism'.

Also, those guys probably did 'come up with their own idea', but then read some things and realised that it already had a name.

What are you arguing against, exactly?
Click to expand...
Putting so much weight into history without realizing history is biased and that just because the sun rises every morning you can't predict it will tomorrow, something could happen, the sun could explode, there could be a fatal collision etc etc at much as the past are facts you can't entirely base your viewpoint on that because history doesn't have scientific controls implemented; life in general has chaos and unforseeable events. Like going back to ancient Greece to figure out how to get a virus off your computer is inefficient
 
Pin said:
OP feels limited by facts because they don't consider them to be "original" ideas.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Facts are good but you use them as a sounding board to create something different. Base something off it, not just talk about things of the past with a tear in your eye.

Honestly it's not even an argument just an observation as well as a rant about how annoying it is.
 
slant said:
Not exactly. Facts are good but you use them as a sounding board to create something different. Base something off it, not just talk about things of the past with a tear in your eye.

Honestly it's not even an argument just an observation as well as a rant about how annoying it is.
Click to expand...
Oh.

Honestly, you're a better person than me to care about other people's detailed thoughts and opinions.

I don't know if I'm close-minded but I just don't give a shit most of the time.
 
slant said:
Putting so much weight into history without realizing history is biased and that just because the sun rises every morning you can't predict it will tomorrow, something could happen, the sun could explode, there could be a fatal collision etc etc at much as the past are facts you can't entirely base your viewpoint on that because history doesn't have scientific controls implemented; life in general has chaos and unforseeable events. Like going back to ancient Greece to figure out how to get a virus off your computer is inefficient
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe that your dates aren't considering chaos or contingency? You make it sound as if what you're saying is somehow revelatory, and I'm sorry if I sound harsh, right now my life circumstances have eroded my patience.

Can you give an example of where you weren't satisfied by their conversation?
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Do you seriously believe that your dates aren't considering chaos or contingency? You make it sound as if what you're saying is somehow revelatory, and I'm sorry if I sound harsh, right now my life circumstances have eroded my patience.

Can you give an example of where you weren't satisfied by their conversation?
Click to expand...
How can anyone boil down cause and effect of a historical fact with 100% accuracy? Why is it that texts written about the same event can be totally different, or, how is it that we "find" history. A document is discovered and we find out about xyz happening during this time that we had no other references about before. To use the past as a predictor of the future is nuts. I'd give that method a 60% accuracy rates. I hate historicism
 
Yeah neither is BETTER. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I get bored of talking about the past unless you're tying it into something about the future. Some people will get really excited about talking about something that happened 2000 years ago and even when you try to make it relevant to modern issues they keep pulling it back to talk about the past . Just seems unproductive.
 
slant said:
How can anyone boil down cause and effect of a historical fact with 100% accuracy? Why is it that texts written about the same event can be totally different, or, how is it that we "find" history. A document is discovered and we find out about xyz happening during this time that we had no other references about before. To use the past as a predictor of the future is nuts. I'd give that method a 60% accuracy rates. I hate historicism
Click to expand...
All of your points are good ones, but I think there are ways of understanding that accounts for them all.

Screw it. This is the system I'm working on right now, drafting it into a paper for History & Theory.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
All of your points are good ones, but I think there are ways of understanding that accounts for them all.

Screw it. This is the system I'm working on right now, drafting it into a paper for History & Theory.
Click to expand...
Whoa! Damn, that's impressive stuff.
 
slant said:
Yeah neither is BETTER. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I get bored of talking about the past unless you're tying it into something about the future. Some people will get really excited about talking about something that happened 2000 years ago and even when you try to make it relevant to modern issues they keep pulling it back to talk about the past . Just seems unproductive.
Click to expand...

Whenever, I discuss the future... It's specifically in relation to the future. This is based of the quote "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes" often attributed to Oscar Wilde. This seems like a sound theory... If it works I'll continue to use it... If it doesn't I'll look for something else that works... I also occasionally lend credence to the old adage "Those that don't pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it"

So if nothing else I like to pay need to the wisdom of our ancestors and occasionally pay attention to it...
 
slant said:
Yeah neither is BETTER. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I get bored of talking about the past unless you're tying it into something about the future. Some people will get really excited about talking about something that happened 2000 years ago and even when you try to make it relevant to modern issues they keep pulling it back to talk about the past . Just seems unproductive.
Click to expand...

So it's not that you don't like history... You just don't like unproductive conversations about history that aren't practical... and relatable to the present/future.

I'd buy that for a dollar...
 
Sloe Djinn said:
This just makes me think of freestyle rapping vs writing rhymes. There's nothing wrong with either, but rappers have their preferences.
Click to expand...

This is why it doesn't bother me. People have different interests and different methods to get where they want to go. There is usually something to learn from listening or observing.
 
I consider history at least equally important as foresight based on present events alone. If we recognise the pattern of present events relating to one from the past, knowledge of past events and their outcome can be used to influence present events as they unfold.

This works on the premise that people don't change, that they the next generation is just as blind as the preceding ones. While this needn't be fully true, ignoring evidence from past events as an indicator of what it might correlate to in the present can enforce the point about unchanging generations. Changes are ever present, but the tools that are being used are and work still the same, no matter how much has changed - this is the part involving human nature. In order to make the past useful for the present, the past needs to be discussed not only on the basis of today's knowledge, but it's important to recognise the mindset of the people synchronously in order to make any diachronical assessments. However, not all of it can be done all at once all the time, especially when there are disagreements among discourse participants.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care much for history (it's too much to learn all of it anyway), but I recognise that it is important to have historical discourse on some level (even if not all potential participants agree on methodology).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top