History+1

Submit at least two comments by midnight, Sunday, February 13th.

For this week's wiki discussion, please respond to the following quote:

"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history" ---G.W.F. Hegel

M. Agundez- I disagree with the quote because if it were not for history we would not know how to deal with certain problems that have been encountered through out mankind's history. Without history cultures would be meaningless as well.

N.Cuevas: Mr. Agundez, I agree that cultures are influenced with history but i am not sure if they are TOTALLY meaningless without history.

L. Silva: I agree with Mr. Agundez in that culture would be meaningless without history because cultures can't simply appear from one day to another, but rather developed throughout history.

B. Uribe: I can both agree and disagree because for some cases we do learn from past history and don't repeat it. But in other cases we know the history but still continue to do what we want.

J.Carvajal: I agree with miss.Uribe because we do tent to do those mistakes eventhough we fix them.

N.Cuevas: I disagree with the quote to an extent because history does make human beings learn from their mistakes. We learn how to deal with issues that have damaged our country or our selves. However, we cannot rely too much on history because it is filled with biased perceptions of certain individuals.

G.Yanez: Hegel claims that referring to the past prevents us from looking forward to the future, that people need to stop pitying themselves and actually do something to prosper.

A.Castaneda: This quote relates to the phrase as we learn more we know less. Since we educate ourselfs with the history given to us we beging to question more and more each time. If whether each event written really happened, how biased is the information given to us, turning our minds to doubting several things, thus creating more questions leading to knowing less than what we have started.

A.Castaneda: Mr. Yanez, I believe you are assuming that Hegel claims that everybody pitys themselves and that they do not do something proper. On the contrary I believe that most people don't pity themselves and because they desire to educate themselves even more; is what prevents us from looking foward, all the knowledge.

L. Silva: Hegal is stating that even though history shows that certain things aren't working out, we refuse or incable of changing, and thus meaning we have learned nothing from our mistakes in history.

E.Tenort: Win! I totally agree with this quote history is useless.

M.Getch: Stop defining usefulness as utilitarianism. It's a flawed system and basing an argument on that alone make me want to dismiss that argument. Eric, I'm asking you with the highest regards manageable, stop trolling TOK. History is useful for a large pool of reasons, many atheist arguments against Christianity are based in history. The TOK book spells out other arguments, but the atheist one seems particularly apt. Without embedding yourself in other mindsets of the period or forgetting the damage that religion has caused not only would atheists be susceptible to religion, but would have a very hard time arguing against faith. The fact that we live in a scientific community is in itself pulled from history, without that we may have a very different, more religious based hierarchy. Though that is a different argument altogether.

N. Eddy: Mr Tenort, I think you are misreading the quote...it isn't saying history is "useless," rather, it's saying that we learn from it that we seem incapable of changing...an idea that we couldn't understand without establishing a historical context. To go back to our class discussion the other day when you talked about learning about Crick and DNA and the Franklin woman, I would say WAS important for you to understand because it helps you to contextualize the and recognize the fact that most academic fields, especially those in Mathematics and Science, are overrepresented by the hetero-normative, male perspective...just from a gendered perspective that means that 50 percent of what we could potentially know/learn from science is unknown because it is silenced! Without understanding history, you cannot combat that. Chew on that and let me know what you think....

E.Tenort: Agundez you do realize that what you are saying is that without history we can deal with history's problems?

M.Getch: The quote seems particularly apt when ascribed to human sciences. Historically we understand the actions taken from people, but that does not give us insight to their modern expression. History is not useful for utilitarianism, and represents more contextual learning. History lends identity and purpose. History does not teach us, it entices us to teach ourselves. To an extent we require history to protect ourselves and to build a foundation from which to seek. That is History.

Curtis Wilson-Patterson: I find this quote to be very interesting and somewhat difficult to follow and also disagree. History is suppose to be something that we can learn from to bring about a change in the future based on what we've seen in the past;however in our society that is not done.

Curtis Wilson-Patterson: Responding to Mr.Tenort's comment,history is not useless, it explains the current situation in our world, why there are certain groups of people suffering in our world.

E.Tenort: I was not trolling TOK I really think history is useless. There is a title section in the TOK book labeled "Why Study History?" where Lagemaat attempts to justify history on 3 grounds: "(1) it gives us a sense on identity;(2) [it] is a defense against propaganda; and (3) [it] enriches our understanding of human nature." I have very solid arguments against all three claims. (1) It is illogical to define yourself in terms of history of which you have no definite proof of. For example it would be illogical for me to define myself in terms of what MLK did, his actions can only serve to define himself and are completely independent of me in the now. The book uses the example that it is impossible for a community to know what the now is without knowing the past. If we where to put this in to actual context like say a community where rape does not exist. The child born in to this community can understand that you do not force sex upon anyone without needing to know the names and history of the people that advocated for such things, without needing to know that in the past some people did force sex upon others, without needing to know the history this child has achieved the present view. (2) The second justification for history is more one against it then anything. The example used is Stalin and how he changed pictures in the past in order to control the future. This only weakens the argument for history it shows how history can be used against us when brought to the present. The book of course does not advocate for this fallacious past but the "actual" past this would be fine but the book itself states that there is no way of knowing the actual past, and if there was we would be committing the appeal to tradition fallacy by going by the historical example. (3) Let me ask you this my fellow Rethors and philosophers; if human nature is natural then why must it be taught? ANSWER ME THIS! If it is only natural for me to fall in love with a girl and all of history shows me this why is it necessary for people to tell me it is only natural? Should it not just come naturally to me? Or is this third reason for history just an example of how the appeal to tradition fallacy, which seems to lay so deep in a of histories justifications, is used to control the present. So to repeat my original argument; I totally agree with this quote history is useless... we learn nothing from it.