• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 8th, 2023
  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.workstoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Why do we glorify horrible people from the distant past?
    1·
    1 month ago

    If this is your definition of “objective”, something you can say about the books in the Bible, sure bro I guess.

    Seriously? What a ridiculous, intellectually dishonest false equivalency. Why not respond to the remainder of my argument? Do you actually doubt whether the Ancient Greeks existed?

    To me objective means it can be empirically proven: 2+2=4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Water at sea level boils at 100c. Etc.

    Pure empiricism is pure nonsense. Objective truths exist independently of individual minds, while subjective truths exist within minds.

    History is composed of a series of events that physically occurred on Planet Earth within the past ~5k years, and were recorded in written form by human beings. Human beings were born, did certain things, wrote them down, and died. We can dig up their remains and verify many of the things they wrote via empirical, scientific methodologies. You can choose to doubt various interpretations of the facts, but your delusions cannot change the inherent reality that lies within.

    Your choice to contest the validity of history is demonstrative of a profoundly irrational mindset, because you are rejecting verifiable information in favor of your own subjective assumptions. You would prefer that history not be objective, because you wish to believe your own subjective version of history as an emotional coping mechanism.

  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.workstoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Why do we glorify horrible people from the distant past?
    104·
    1 month ago

    There is nothing “objective” about History, it is an educated guess.

    A lack of absolute certainty does not equate to a lack of objectivity. You’re right that history is necessarily written by individuals who have biases. But it is also written by many individuals from different perspectives and correlated with a variety of other sources of knowledge, such as archeology, geology, etc.

    For another example think about what the Greeks wrote about the Persians during their many wars, and vice versa. They are conflicrive accounts. Both biased and political. So again, what history is correct, objective?

    They are conflicting on some things, but they also agree on many things. For instance, I’m sure we can agree that the Greeks and Persians existed, controlled large empires, fought wars against each other, etc. Historians are trained to analyze all of the documents available from all perspectives and arrive at the most objective conclusion that they can muster.

    I strongly oppose the postmodern attitude that everything is subjective. It’s good to remember the limits of our knowledge, but to completely discard an academic field such as history as entirely subjective is quite absurd.

  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.workstoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Why is HD or 3D so impressive on a flat screen, but we walk around in real life with the highest definition possible and the most realistic 3D and it's completely mundane?
    31·
    2 months ago

    Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate art more than most. But there’s an exclusionary aspect that exists with art, wherein only some people can truly appreciate various aspects.

    In contrast, nature is more universal and primal. Everyone, regardless of language or culture or education, can appreciate natural phenomena. The beauty of nature speaks to us on a fundamental level, whereas the beauty of art requires a certain degree of acculturation and intellectual effort to grasp.

    Furthermore, human art is a reflection of nature and indeed a part of the beauty of nature, as you say. However, that inevitably positions it as a subset of the all encompassing beauty of existence as a whole. Artistic works are small mirrors reflecting back aspects of reality in interesting ways. But because they can only ever represent fragments of the greater whole, they are somewhat less awe inspiring.

    Often, works of art can prompt us to engage with the beauty of reality, so I’m not condemning them in any way. I’m just saying that the representation can’t be better than the real thing, even if humans wish that it were.