What Is O'ism's Attitude Toward History?

[Elysium]

Well, I apologize if this has been brought up in the past, but I couldn't find an answer on the forum.

O'ism is founded on, not surprisingly, objectivity. However, with regard to history, it is often extremely difficult to get an accurate account of what happened, simply because perceptions differ from person to person on what has been observed. For example, three people witnessing a crime may report what happened very differently, as three people all watching a stick planted in the water of the Lock Ness Lake can have one person report that he saw a head instead of a stick, despite scientists intentionally placing the stick there as a test.

Therefore, my question is: when it comes to something that cannot be strictly proven in the scientific sense, how does O'ism approach history? Does it go by what is generally accepted? Does it go by what has the most evidence documented to support one theory of the past, as opposed to another?

I bring this up because I stated in history class that historical fiction must adhere to what one has learned to be most correct about the past, and was further asked "does this mean that we should just accept the version of history that is generally agreed to be correct?" I knew that one should not simply "take another's word for it," but in general, how does O'ism deal with this (what I would argue) enigmatic aspect of existence, short of videotaped documented proof (assuming no tampering, of course)?

[IAmMetaphysical]

I think O'isms position on history is that it is "that which has happened before right now."

[Hal]

I think that what youre asking is partly a methodological question which lies within the specialist field of hstoriography rather than philosophy as such. Hence I dont think that Objectivism really says anything about it - I dont recall anything AR wrote that either addressed this issue or is directly relevant to it. Of course, this doesnt mean that Objectivist principles cant be applied when trying to assess a methodology - I would assume that some approaches are closer to the spirit of Objectivism than others.

I admit this probably isnt very helpful

I bring this up because I stated in history class that historical fiction must adhere to what one has learned to be most correct about the past,

I would say that this is an issue of aesthetics rather than history. The question of whether "historical fiction" should adhere to the accepted facts would depend on what the writer's purpose was. If he is claiming that the book is an accurate portrayal of what happened, then it would be dishonest of him to include information which he did not believe to be true. But there's no reason why a writer shouldnt base his work around historical situation yet alter it to make things more interesting, as long as he isnt claiming that his work is entirely historically accurate.

and was further asked "does this mean that we should just accept the version of history that is generally agreed to be correct?" I knew that one should not simply "take another's word for it,"

It depends on your context of knowledge. If you're writing a novel set in Victorian Britain but you dont know much about this time period, then getting your information from a historian who had studied this period in detail would be perfectly rational - an appeal to authority is somewhat valid when the person actually is an authority. Similarly,if you wanted to research the period for yourself by reading history books/academic journals, you could justifiably believe their contents assuming that they were reputable (of course, this doesnt guarantee they are true). But if you had more knoweldge on the field - eg you were a qualified historian - you would probably have your own avenues of knowledge, and possibly your own individual research. Then you wouldnt necessarily have to rely on the authority of others.

This isnt specific to history though - someone writing a novel which involved (eg) scientific concepts would be in the same situation. If they wanted to talk about a new invention which relied on concepts from advanced physics, yet had never studied this to any real degree, their best option might be to ask a physicist.

Edited April 13, 2006 by Hal

[Clawg]

I doubt there is any way Objectivism can help you in acquiring a more educated guess about what has happened than any other philosophy. One way of studying history is to look at the underlying systems, construct the history yourself and compare it with actual observations. But you still can be lied to just as easily if you don't constantly study a particular history subject yourself.

But where Objectivism can help you is from the point on where you draw conclusions for your own life from history, i.e. 'judge' history. Here, I think, is Objectivism superior to many other philosophies. Its principles do not base on observations of reality (top-down) or on consequentialism but on an axiomatic system (bottom-up). That is why a libertarian would say "Low taxes are good" while an Objectivist would say "Low taxes are bad" although they both agree that less taxation is better than more taxation.

A libertarian can still be fooled into a collectivist society (a libertarian will then base his decisions on economic reasoning, fooled by a wrongly researched or willfully distorted history), not because he does not share the goal of for example lowering taxes but because he cannot judge the current situation objectively (what are 'low taxes'?). If you don't have an absolute, well defined philosophy then your philosophy is open for manipulation and error.

[EC]

@ thread's original question--- It never happened! History is what we say it is or what God say's it is. Shhhh. don't tell anyone.

[Proverb]

mmm sarcasm.

[dark_unicorn]

My advice when it comes to the historical question, get alot of different sources, weigh the facts against each other, use logic to seek out any contradictions, try to resolve them by leaning towards the more likely answer, hypothesize what you think happened based on the facts at hand.

Ultimately history functions the same way that mathematical measurements do, just in a different context. You can only question details as far as they are both knowable and practical, hense the mathematical technique which we know as approximation. Approximation is done specifically for the purpose of keeping the measurement accurate enough to be practical, and at the same time not reduce it beyond it because such reductions are not neccesary. If someone asks how many kilometers it is to drive from point A to point B is, simply stating an approximation as 1.25 kilometers is sufficient, and further specifying to something as lengthy as 1.249986574 kilometers is not neccesary, and will probably leave the person asking for directions perplexed.

There comes a point where you have to weigh the relevance of a given event in history. For example, if we wish to know Abraham Lincoln's motivation for seeking to end slavery in the south, I don't think we need to take into account the fact that he was flat footed and often went barefoot when company was present. (Such facts are true, but are not relevant to the situation). Furthermore, if a historical event touches on a subject that you have a certain opinion on, particularly an ideological one, you must reprove your own premises before objectivity is possible. One of my biggest complaints of many political historians is that they are often revisionists and will intentionally mis-represent historical events or divorce them from any sense of perspective in order to satisfy their own ideological caprices.

P.S. - Bear 2 things in mind, although I've read nearly all of Ayn Rand's books I do not qualify as an objectivist for some various differences, and also I am not a professional historian, though I am an avid reader of history, particularly that of Ancient Greece, Rome and Late Medieval/Renaissance Europe.

[BurgessLau]

Therefore, my question is: when it comes to something that cannot be strictly proven in the scientific sense, how does O'ism approach history? Does it go by what is generally accepted? Does it go by what has the most evidence documented to support one theory of the past, as opposed to another?

You have asked a lot of questions. They deserve a serious response. In this post, and perhaps in later posts, I will try to offer my answer.

First, though, I would like to know why you don't use the proper name for Ayn Rand's creation, Objectivism. It is not properly spelled "O'ism."

Second, philosophy sets the context for all other knowledge, including the specialized sciences such as the science of history. The field that focuses on the fundamental principles underlying a particular specialized science is the "philosophy" of that science. For example, in this case, philosophy of history is the field to look to. Leonard Peikoff working under Ayn Rand's editing has sketched a few elements of such a philosophy of history. Be sure to closely study Ayn Rand's "Introduction" to Leonard Peikoff's Ominous Parallels, a book which puts into practice their philosophy of history, which in turn is based on Objectivism.

[BurgessLau]

Therefore, my question is: when it comes to something that cannot be strictly proven in the scientific sense, how does O'ism approach history?

First, are you saying that one's knowledge of past human events cannot be proven? If so, what do you mean by "proof"?

Second, "O'ism" [sic] is a philosophy, the one created by Ayn Rand. Philosophies do not approach anything. Perhaps you are asking how a historian, working from Objectivism as his guide in his work as well as in the rest of his life, would use its principles to study past human events. Is that what you are asking?

If so, then the general answer is that he would proceed objectively. What that means is that he would demand of himself -- and others -- that all ideas be drawn logically from facts of reality (present and past).

Does it go by what is generally accepted? Does it go by what has the most evidence documented to support one theory of the past, as opposed to another?

No, an Objectivist historian would not go by "what is generally accepted." He would go by evidence. He must then assess the evidence and the arguments that lead from the evidence to the conclusions. Are the supposed facts and the arguments base on them objective? If so, do they suggest possibility, probability, or certainty?

Your questions are very perceptive. I hope you will ask more. If you need more specific information, please ask again, with specific questions.

[BurgessLau]

I bring this up because I stated in history class that historical fiction must adhere to what one has learned to be most correct about the past, and was further asked "does this mean that we should just accept the version of history that is generally agreed to be correct?" I knew that one should not simply "take another's word for it," [...]

Once again, your questions are excellent for bringing up important issues.

If you are asking what a fiction writer should do to decide whether the history books he is reading are reliable, then that is a partly different question than asking about what a historian should do. The general method for both is identical: Be objective. However, the extent and intensity of methods would probably be quite different -- but that depends in part of what the fiction writer's and the historian's purposes are.

Perhaps if you could give a particular example of historical fiction that you are thinking about, the discussion will be more productive.

Edited May 10, 2006 by BurgessLau