How Useful is History?

We constantly tell ourselves that we learn from our mistakes, that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, but how much truth is there in those sayings?  We also tell ourselves that history repeats itself anyway, and if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.  Naturally, we mean that one tries a new strategy to solve the problem, but for most people the variation is so slight as to be almost undetectable.  We use history to justify the present as well as to predict the future, but it is not "real" history; rather, the history we tell is merely our favored interpretation, all the better for justifications.  We can chalk that up as usefulness, but how desirable or respectable is it?  Another problem is that many people refuse to learn from history, either because they are suspicious of the agendas of those who interpret it, or because they are convinced that the repetitions of time are not similar enough to be useful.  While we can see cycles in broad strokes, the details that affect individual lives do not come together in ways that can be predicted or connected so as to effectively use the past to prevent future disaster.  There are always mitigating circumstances, some argument for "special" treatment that does not follow the historical prescription.  So, whether history can be of use is debatable, although I personally lean towards it being somewhat useful, but the real question should be do we choose to use history?  The answer, I think, is usually no.

Our Doctor began by saying it was a pity we did not spend more time analyzing the essays that were written; on this occasion in particular, they were excellent in his opinion.  The word "useful", on the other hand, did not seem appropriate.  History is mysterious and attractive, but also destructive.  Every person and every nation experiences history in a different way, and the history learned in one school will not the the history learned in another.  Nobody can correlate history, and all the sources we have available can be manipulated.  We cannot compare information to find the truth, if no source is more trustworthy than the others.  He turned to the importance of history for human beings, saying we are history as the compilation of our experiences, in contrast to medical history, which is composed of facts and numbers, making it knowledge.  We need to examine the past for errors and correct them for the future to ensure our survival.  In the past, our information came from fewer sources, in some cases only one like the radio or local paper.  Now, we spend hours with televisions and webpages, making ourselves in information's own image.  For all our Western emphasis on individuality and freedoms, the Doctor warned us, we are members of society because we are slaves, slaves to information.  Professional liars (such as himself, as he often tells us) work hard to convince us of their vision of the world.  We can be easily exploited.  Groups work behind the scenes and every action, every war, is an invention of some group.  He ended with an admonition against listening to people who give bad descriptions of reality.

The Leader wrote of the difficulty in defining the terms of this topic, resorting to making a couple of assumptions.  In the meeting he mentioned the phrases "History repeats itself" and "Don't repeat the mistakes of the past", labeling them contradictory.  Although history is the past, we have to pay attention to time passing, since this is how we justify where we end up.  What we call history is the accumulation of actions taken by individuals, as well as the natural results of those actions.  So, he asked, is history a Humean causal or the fruit of individual decisions?  It must be both.  Everyone has a set of limitations, with leaders generally having the most options when the time comes for decision making, but we all work with what we have.  As for usefulness, in the case of history it depends on the reliability of the information we have.  We have history in living memory, which gives us witnesses, but as we know witnesses are actually not very reliable at all.  We also have written history, which is at the mercy of the goals of the writer.  He mentioned the diminishing of relevance for great figures of the past, whose words and thoughts were not transmitted with the speed and frequency that we have today with so much social media and global connectivity.  One thing we might learn from history is how technology ends up being a game changer - it makes old ideas and values obsolete.  He admitted that he had not thought about who in particular history should be useful for, but left the question without a firm answer.  He pointed out how our broad access to information makes it easy for us to find evidence of trickery or support for doubt about official explanations, but the problem of reliability continues to loom.  In order for history to be useful, we must learn the right lessons from it.

The True Philosopher also pondered the meaning of "history" and the necessity of each witness to contribute to real history.  Still, history is a social activity in that the memory of each member combines with the rest to create the historical tapestry.  Sometimes, however, we do not consider these contributions as authentic as they lack some sort of academic or official backing, especially when history is part of an oral tradition instead of a written story.  He was more positive about the utility, saying if something is history, it is useful by definition.  Humans do not remember useless information for the lifespan of their society.  We tend to trust historians, but they are often under the control or influence of some greater interest.  There are reams of history left in unofficial deposits, waiting to be recognized when those interests change.  The events of reality of important to particular individuals, and "history" is the convergence of the usefulness of each event.

An Impermanent Participant also connected history to writing, saying before written language there was no history.  She also delved into the fields and varieties of history, such as anthropology.  She admitted that written chronologies have been dependent on authority for their existence, so despite their acceptance, they are subject to distortion.  The usefulness of these histories, she thought, was mainly nationalistic: people want to believe in their heroes and legends, all the things that made them what they are, and probably what made their nation great.  The great figures of Spanish history - Columbus, the Catholic Rulers, etc. - are never talked about entirely truthfully, but their legends are useful for national cohesion.

The Deep Thinker had been concerned mostly with personal history when considering the topic.  For him, history has the utmost importance, due to the simple fact that the present is a direct consequence of the past.  However, history is also almost purely subjective.  He finished with the question of whether it was possible to separate the past and the present.

The Seeker of Happiness brought another, firmer perspective, stating that history is completely useless.  It is nothing more than the propaganda of politicians.  Science has no need of history, since scientific facts are true always, and the small facts of history almost never.  He was frustrated by the lack of stories about real people considered history, saying that we should promote happy people, not better kings.

One Popping In was also of the opinion that most history is propagandistic, and to the benefit of thosr in power.  Where there is voting, people are tricked into voting the "wrong" way by some misstated precedent.  Yet, he also felt that history is not useless at all.  Somehow, science can support it.