This I believe...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...There is such a thing as an "absolute truth".

Human memory is flawed, our perspective limited, and our conclusions colored by emotion, but an objective reality does exists. To some, this belief marks me as backward, or lacking perspective. However my belief does not require thier approval, it is self-contained.

Recently there has been a rash of posts about revisionist history in various forms. This post started out as a reply to one of those posts but quickly started to take on a life of its own.

I'm not sure if I can articulate just how much the idea of revising (or "cherry-picking" from) history bothers me.

My paternal grandfather grew-up in the Ukraine in the 30s. Several members of his (and by extension my) extended family were "disappeared", records expunged, photographs destroyed. I know nothing of these people. My grandfather never spoke of them, and all those who knew them (including my grandfather) have long since passed away. Yet they did exist, and as long as someone remembers at least that much, their existence was not without meaning.

In his history, Архипелаг ГУЛАГ (GULAG Archipelago), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the fate of those "58s", "The Politicals" whom the Soviet Union decided to erase. This may sound like hyperbole but I see no real moral difference between these erasures and the more subtle crime of censorship. Where do we draw the line between this and this

("Don't worry," the commercial tells us "it's Ok to lie if serves your purpose.")

In regards to Huck Finn, I'd almost prefer that they burn the books. At least that would be honest. Censorship is far more insideous, by changing his words we diminish the author. In time the bastadized story is accepted as true and the mass-murderer becomes a national hero or a kitschy marketing gimmic.

There are many things about this world that are horrifying. Concealing this simple fact helps no-one and only ensures that the horror will continue.

Edit: a comment from underlankers that sums up my closing argument far better than I did.

...Individuals and events can have aspects laudable and condemnable, but that neither can be or should be separated from each other. It's why honesty in history is so rare as to really be non-existent even among scholars.

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Then you have a problem with history. History isn't what happened, history is the story we tell about what happened.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

True,

There are many different versions of the same story but that does not change what the world is. (see the 2nd sentence of the OP)

Denying reality, in the long term, only leads to more strife.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Tell that to the people denying reality as a substantive essence different than and superior to the human practice of history.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Then you have a problem with history. History isn't what happened, history is the story we tell about what happened.

History is what happened. It's up to us to be honest about it.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

history is the story we tell about what happened.

I'm of the belief history is the chinese whispers version of the story told by the victors, often based very loosely around what happened ;)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The thing is that history is in large part a collection of charming myths we tell ourselves, and there is a great deal of uncertainty that increases exponentially the further back in time we refer to WRT history. For instance all testimony of the Phoenicians/Canaanites is from three sources, all of which for their own reason hated their guts so that any positive references must be to truly exceptional individuals.

The purpose of history too often is not any rigorous examination of the past and the individuals therein as they actually were, but instead meeting various needs for a mythology of heroes and villains, as opposed to actual human beings. That is the ultimate reason the statement that "history is written by the victors" exists. It's also why the more I've studied history the more I've come to be quite comfortable on an abstract level with the notion that morality is invented by the great and the strong after the fact to give brutal reality a nobler purpose than what actually exists.

It is very wrong to distort the past, but then people often take past events and individuals not in the whole, but in the part. The honest look would require admitting that individuals and events can have aspects laudable and condemnable, but that neither can be or should be separated from each other. It's why honesty in history is so rare as to really be non-existent even among scholars.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The honest look would require admitting that individuals and events can have aspects laudable and condemnable, but that neither can be or should be separated from each other. It's why honesty in history is so rare as to really be non-existent even among scholars.

This is the heart of both my opening closing premises. I felt it was too big of an idea to confine it to a comment on another post.

Speaking of national heros...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Back in the day, when Ronald Reagan was president, I figured that he would join the ranks of the century's most loved and hated personalities. I didn't realize how close my prediction would be until Reagan died and people paid their respects to him. I told my students to pray for all of the sorry souls in Hell because, now that Reagan has arrived, the temperature has gone up a few degrees.

As for absolute truth, the nice thing about absolutes is that there are so many from which to choose. Some think that they will "absolutely" go to Heaven upon their departure from among the living. Others think the opposite. A third group of people believes that the after-death is just a story made up to frighten the gullible mind.

Re: Speaking of national heros...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The unfortunate aspect of religion is that it is shaped by the limitsof our perception. It is impossible to know for sure what happens to our soul/intellect when we die thus people say what they believe.

Re: Speaking of national heros...

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I agree about Ronnie, but I was dining with some eastern Germans who thought he walked on water a few years back.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in Hell but if such a place exists you'll discover for yourself that Reagan isn't there.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking that you're going to find some kind of soul-mate aha-moment when you read Ayn Rand and her "objectivist" manifesto, if you haven't already. She's very popular in certain circles.

Although philosophical realism came before her, Immanuel Kant and those lads...

The existence of an objective truth outside of human errors has never been much of a problem in these types of discussions, it is how we process that fact and try to dismantle it, which is the bulk of the debate (as can be observed by for instance the exchange between Justjeff and Meus Ovatio). Personally I think it is rather simple and dangerous to get stuck in the thesis that there is an objective truth, because this exact mindset often make people's subjective minds settle on something way too easily, even when there indeed is a clear objective truth.
Truth, historical or otherwise can best be pursued by fragmented and careful research combined with a constant observation of context and most importantly, the humble realization of the limits of our subjective minds.

Just my two cents.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I've read Atlas Shrugged and while I found myself agreeing with many of her premises I think the lady had issues.

While I agree with the core assumptions behind objectivism I suspect that she fell into the very trap that you describe. That is why the issue of fallability is so important.

There is an Objective truth but our ability to percieve it is limited by numerous factors. It seems to me that the majority of people latch on to one part or the other without ever considering that they can both be true

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"I'm thinking that you're going to find some kind of soul-mate aha-moment when you read Ayn Rand and her 'objectivist' manifesto, if you haven't already. She's very popular in certain circles.

Although philosophical realism came before her, Immanuel Kant and those lads..."

Also, just about every philosopher ever.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

our perspective limited

Flawed. Most optical illusions demonstrate perception flaws.

The huck finn incident reminds me of john ashcroft covering up the boobies on the statue of liberty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1788845.stm). Bin Laden would smile at the irony of that move.

I want the casket open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till)

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I've always said the facts remain once all the spin is stripped away.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Sure.

Now all we need is a reliable way to get to the facts.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I still say that dividing by zero is +/- infinity, not undefined.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

The problem with absolute truth, is that no-one has ever been able to prove conclusively that they have access to it, and it may very well eternally out of reach.

So far as the best information we know from those investigating the issue, it doesn't appear as if it is even theoretically possible for thinking minds to know if their "facts" happen to be absolutely in accordance with objective reality (i.e. are absolutely true), let alone to communicate this certainty to another thinking mind.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

How do you figure?

In what sense is our knowledge not objective or not absolute?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I should have said here that "The problem with objective reality is(...)" rather than "absolute truth".

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And there's the rub...

Sooner or later you have to take something on faith. Even if that something is as basic as "I exist" or "what I see is a reflection of the universe" (as opposed to an extreamly detailed halucination). Otherwise we must deny everything and that road leads to madness.

Human nature

[russj.livejournal.com]

It is part of our nature that when we write a history, we try to write a narrative that makes sense. Even when we strive for objectivity, we don't completely succeed.
We look for causes to any action, and we look for effects of it as well.
We can be mistaken, especially when we simply see causes/effects that are not linked in any real way to events--but which follow each other in time.
Humans have an innate tendency to see order where none may exist. We often see patterns in the "white noise" of unrelated events.