Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- history [2024/01/12 12:09] – ultracomfy
+++ history [2025/04/09 20:12] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+~~Title:History~~
 <WRAP column right 18%>
-{{page>Templates:Science}}
+{{page>Templates:Secularization}}
 </WRAP>
 <WRAP box>
@@ Line 26: / Line 27: @@
 </WRAP>
-<fs xx-large>History</fs> refers to the past or at least the study of the past. While perhaps interesting to those with an innate interest in how the modern day came to be, it is not particularly interesting when establishing a consensus on how the modern day //should// be. There seem to be a few misconceptions about history that I will try to get straight here.\\
+<fs xx-large>History</fs> refers to the past or at least the study of the past. While perhaps interesting to those with an innate interest in how the modern day came to be, it is not particularly interesting when establishing a consensus on how the modern day //should// be. When reading this page, keep in mind that this is my primary interest: Finding out what is best for humanity, then finding a way to get there. Everything else is irrelevant.((Irrelevant **to me**, anyway. I am not saying that someone else may feel different about it.))\\
+{{page>Templates:Factuality}}
 ====== Meaning of History to me ======
@@ Line 48: / Line 51: @@
 </WRAP>
 "We need history to not repeat our mistakes." cry the critics. Yes, if only the people in 1933 had some history to draw from to make their decisions, because then [[World War 2]] would never have happened. If we had tales of a previous, intelligent civilization on earth going extinct due to [[climate change]], would that suddenly make people care about it?((If yes then why does it take someone else to make a mistake before we before you can stop making that same mistake ourselves? If not, then apparently we are **not** learning from history.)) No matter what you answer, yes or no, it shines light on some very fundamental flaws in society which are //not// addressed by learning about history.\\
+The irony is that we do in fact have tales of changing climates leading to the downfall of civilizations. The Mayan decline was through ecological, climate factors.\\
+\\
 Just keep in mind that, yes, [[antisemitism]] has already happened. Homophobia has already happened. Slavery has already happened. War and terror are deeply rooted in human history. The modern times revival of these old things in addition to the current rise of antisemitism (the 2023 Israel war on Gaza is happening as I am writing this), the LGBTQIA+ moral panic triggered by conservative pundits etc., history has little to say about these things that I couldn't already deduce from just the application of ethics. History may be able to give //context// and that is good, but in terms of "how much can I learn from history that allows me to make better decisions //today//?", history is, unfortunately, not the gold mine it is made out to be, and looking at the world out there, we are definitely //not// learning from it. Of course we're not.
-For example, the mistake of being politically inactive. Only ever casting a vote every four years so to get a say on who gets to take a turn is certainly not being 'politically active'. "The politicians are breaking their campaign promises", but nobody ever thinks about doing something about it. Political inaction of the people is what enables rampant corruption in rich countries like Germany. If corruption actually sufficiently affected re-election rates or caused massive protests and strikes, things would change very rapidly. It can't ever be fully eliminated, but it could be made politically insignificant. If climate change inaction lead to horrible re-election rates or mass strikes, we would be the first nation to fully transition to renewables. History shows us how this mistake was made time and time again, but nobody is learning. Where the hell is the learning!?? Nobody is not reapeating other people's mistakes. There's war, discrimination, bullying, inflated body images, marginalization, but certainly every individual thinks they're not part of it somehow. "I definitely do not marginalize people! I would know if I did, but because I am a good person (obviously) I know that I am not."((Just because someone is not marginalizing jews doesn't make them any better //today// than those who marginalized jews in //their// time, if they are marginalizing other people (not jews, but still marginalizing) in //our// time. Or just spread hate/spite in general, through whatever way possible.))
+For example, the mistake of being politically inactive. Only ever casting a vote every four years or so to get a say on who gets to take a turn is certainly not being 'politically active'. "The politicians are breaking their campaign promises", but nobody ever thinks about doing something about it. Political inaction of the people is what enables rampant corruption in rich countries like Germany. If corruption actually sufficiently affected re-election rates or caused massive protests and strikes, things would change very rapidly. It can't ever be fully eliminated, but it could be made politically insignificant. If climate change inaction lead to horrible re-election rates or mass strikes, we would be the first nation to fully transition to renewables. History shows us how this mistake was made time and time again, but nobody is learning. Where the hell is the learning!?? Nobody is not reapeating other people's mistakes. There's war, discrimination, bullying, inflated body images, marginalization, but certainly every individual thinks they're not part of it somehow. "I definitely do not marginalize people! I would know if I did, but because I am a good person (obviously) I know that I am not."((Just because someone is not marginalizing jews doesn't make them any better //today// than those who marginalized jews in //their// time, if they are marginalizing other people (not jews, but still marginalizing) in //our// time. Or just spread hate/spite in general, through whatever way possible.))
 ===== But isn't everything history? =====
 Everything we see and smell and know and feel is part of a long, sliding scale of history that extends ever-forward in lockstep with time that moves ahead at the same pace itself. As such, every piece of information we know is based on history. When I say that war is bad, I rely on the experiences from the past where I have felt suffering, [[Utilitarianism|declare suffering as bad]]((Because it is an [[axiom]] in my moral framework.)), go on to claim that war has a lot of suffering and therefore that it is "bad" and should be avoided.((Of course, nothing is ever inherently "good" or "bad", but that's not the point here.)) Every conception of ideas that I ever had relies on it's own little "history", just like scientific discovery is always a history in of itself.
-However, this is not what I mean when I say "history". Scientific discoveries may have historic //context//, but they stand on their own without it. Gold doesn't react with oxygen, which makes it useful for applications where rust would present major problems. This is a fact, and other facts may have been established in the past. I may care about individual facts that were established in the past, but I do not care about //how they came to be//, ie. the "history" part of that discovery. I don't know how and why this chemical property of gold was discovered, and I don't know what other elements scientists or alchemists have looked at. Irrelevant. If I need something that doesn't rust **and** isn't gold then I can consult previously established facts or do some scientific inquiry to find that out, but this still does not necessitate "history". **Just because a fact was established in the past (like "water melts or freezes at 0°C") doesn't make it history.**
+However, this is not what I mean when I say "history". Scientific discoveries may have historic //context//, but they stand on their own without it. Gold doesn't react with oxygen, which makes it useful for applications where rust would present major problems. This is a fact, and other facts may have been established in the past. I may care about individual facts that were established in the past, but I do not care about //how they came to be//, ie. the "history" part of that discovery. I don't know how and why this chemical property of gold was discovered, and I don't know what other elements scientists or alchemists have looked at. Irrelevant. If I need something that doesn't rust **and** isn't gold then I can consult previously established facts or do some scientific inquiry to find that out, but this still does not necessitate "history". **Just because a fact was established in the past (like "water melts or freezes at 0°C") doesn't make it history.** If you still think it does, then it's probably a [[Words]] issue.
 ====== Modern day context of History ======
@@ Line 70: / Line 75: @@
 </WRAP>
 </WRAP>
-<WRAP centeralign>~Winston Churchill</WRAP>
+<WRAP centeralign>~Winston Churchill, though it's not to be taken literally. There is more to history (a lot more) and history doesn't stop after the victors.</WRAP>
 </WRAP>
@@ Line 84: / Line 89: @@
 ====== Historical Context ======
+//See the full page on [[Secularization]].//\\
 There is one aspect of history that I like in particular, and it has to do with "learning how things in the present came to be": Putting things into historical context. For example, the modern day wave of discrimination against [[transgender]] is just one step in a centuries-long fight against discrimination of **all** kind. The only thing that changed is the exact position of the [[Overton Window]], but not its implications. These days it's mostly against Transgender, Homosexuality and Mental Illness((And let's not forget scientists, climate activists, vegans (or at least vegan food-alternatives), foreigners, the poor, the unemployed, the young and so many more...)), back then it was black people, even more homosexuals, jews and women((Not to say that any of these problems are no longer problems nowadays, I am just saying that the bulk of discrimination used to focus on different things at different points in time.)), before that it was slaves, then before that <del>unbelievers of Christianity</del> heretics, witches, still more jews; the Romans used to discriminate against Christians when //that// started to pick up steam(([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire|Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire]], from Wikipedia. It was only local and sporadic, but it's one of the easier things to find. Point is that the Romans too had things to discriminate against, including slaves.)). In contrast, //they// didn't even //think// of discriminating people for their color.