History and human being

Daniel C

One aspect of human being which is often neglected philosophically is its relationship to history. Iam not stating that man's history is not authentically recorded - I'm sure so much "history" has been written over the centuries that libraries can literally be filled with what can be called "history books". When we start talking about the "historical-cultural context" of human events, we are moving closer to what I have in mind. When talking in this way we are usually trying to contextualise events thereby emphasizing that "things" cannot be properly understood in themselves in separation of other things - proper understanding is only a possibility if "things" are understood in their relationship to other "things", their history being one of the aspects constituting this relationship.

Let's start with individual people. It can be stated that every man, woman and child "has" a history which can be shorter or longer depending on the person's age. This way of talking about history in relation to a person creates the impression that, among different human attributes, having a history is also such an attribute, being perhaps different from other more concrete attributes like length, hair color etc in that it is a more abstract human property. My question arises at this point. Is this view of the position of history in a person's life not a view which is in complete denial of the true position of history in everbody's life? My thesis in this regard is the following: as I am living from moment to moment, everything I am doing and which is happening to me in this sweeping process called life is, while it is going over from the present to the past, forming me, giving shape to my life, from birth to death. These sweeping / shaping "forces" are my history and I can never ever be separated from them in the sense of: on the one hand, here am I, and, on the other hand, there are they. These "forces" are integral to who I am - they "integrate" me to be who I am. Therefrore, it can never be justified to state that someone "has" a history. Much nearer to the truth will be to state that someone is what he/she has become in his/her history. In other words, you, I and all of us, we are our history. The role of history should thus not be restricted to cultural philosophy, but should be given an ontological position in its role of making up the picture of the nature of human being!

This view has, of course, also implications for philosophical anthropology where man is viewed in a collective sense, but I will leave that for another day.

ovdtogt

↪Daniel C

Wouldn't you be putting your philosophical argument in your historical context thereby admitting it is merely a subjective observation, having no universal value?

Eee

Hi, Daniel. You should check out Heidegger. History meets ontology hasn't been neglected.

In other words, you, I and all of us, we are our history. The role of history should thus not be restricted to cultural philosophy, but should be given an ontological position in its role of making up the picture of the nature of human being!
This view has, of course, also implications for philosophical anthropology where man is viewed in a collective sense, but I will leave that for another day. — Daniel C

I agree with all of this, but it's also already been said and said well. As I see it, it's hard enough to catch up with the conversation, let alone add to it. It's always later than you think, even taking this principle itself into account. Check out Heidegger. Or, if you want a less well-known dish, try Kojeve.

tim wood

↪Daniel C

We don't often have OPs on history - there's not even a forum for it. Arguably it is among the most important topics. For example, every fact is an historical fact, which can lead to interesting conclusions.

What's required to proceed is at least a preliminary discussion of what history is - or even just a work-in-progress definition.

I offer this, got from books. (I, myself, have found myself at all times essentially ignorant of the what history is.) History is not a mere cataloging of events. No doubt such a catalog is useful to do history, but it is not the thing itself. History, then, is the attempt to understand the connectivity of events. in short, the telling of a story.

And to be sure, there are stories big and small. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, for example,is among the first of contemporary histories that attempts to tell the story of the people(s) of the United States in terms of their own experiences, as opposed to the history of the US itself, or of wars or battles, or via recounting events in the lives of famous men.

You've opened a huge topic. Be interesting to see where it goes and how it goes.

NOS4A2

↪tim wood

I think you’re right about stories.

I suppose history isn’t so much a cataloging of events as it is an understanding of concrete human artifacts, the relations between ourselves and the leftovers of previous generations: their works, their expressions, and whatever they left to posterity. We cannot say much of human history without these things.

The event is gone as soon as it ends and all we’re doing left with are the memories, the stories, as they exist within the minds who remember them, an we too if they write them down for us.

Like you said there are stories big and small. But the small ones, so long as they persist, are still history. This is why we should be delicate when it comes to these artifacts, because all it takes is one man to put them to the flame. At the same time we should give more space for more artifacts, so it isn’t always the few telling the stories for the many.

Possibility

My question arises at this point. Is this view of the position of history in a person's life not a view which is in complete denial of the true position of history in everbody's life?

My thesis in this regard is the following: as I am living from moment to moment, everything I am doing and which is happening to me in this sweeping process called life is, while it is going over from the present to the past, forming me, giving shape to my life, from birth to death. These sweeping / shaping "forces" are my history and I can never ever be separated from them in the sense of: on the one hand, here am I, and, on the other hand, there are they. These "forces" are integral to who I am - they "integrate" me to be who I am. Therefrore, it can never be justified to state that someone "has" a history. Much nearer to the truth will be to state that someone is what he/she has become in his/her history. — Daniel C

I am an event more than I am an object: I have a fixed duration, a history.

But I am an experiencing subject more than I am an event in history: I consist of a collection of interrelated, informative historical events (not all of which have definite three-dimensional aspects), structuring who I am not even according to their temporal aspects in some linear progression, but more according to their significance or value for my experience in any moment: a five-dimensional ‘block universe’ of the mind that informs the will in its faculty of determining and initiating action, with or without consciousness.

In the same way, history as a broader topic is explored not just as a ‘timeline’ of objectively defined events, but as a five-dimensional structure of conceptualised events, subjectively experienced and expressed in relation to geographical, cultural, religious or political value/significance.

TheMadFool

These sweeping / shaping "forces" are my history and I can never ever be separated from them in the sense of: on the one hand, here am I, and, on the other hand, there are they. These "forces" are integral to who I am - they "integrate" me to be who I am. Therefrore, it can never be justified to state that someone "has" a history. Much nearer to the truth will be to state that someone is what he/she has become in his/her history. In other words, you, I and all of us, we are our history. The role of history should thus not be restricted to cultural philosophy, but should be given an ontological position in its role of making up the picture of the nature of human being! — Daniel C

I'm not sure if I understand you completely. You seem to be saying that to remove the people, the sense of who and what they are, and focus on the usual topics of politics, religion, culture, etc., is at best incomplete or at worst wrong. Yet, I wonder if there's anything other than the usual framework of history I mentioned that could justify your thesis. What is there in "someone is what he/she has become in his/her history" that is so distinct that the usual approach to history fails to inform us something important?

I agree that every human is shaped by stuff like religion, culture, philosophy, politics, etc. which give a framework to history. To understand a person in terms of who s/he is will definitely require a grasp of this environment of ideas and experiences s/he is/was mmersed in. I think this is done by historians who seem to give considerable weightage to so-called movers and shakers of the world. Influential people are analyzed in the way you suggest - as in how they became who they were/are.

Is this what you mean?

Daniel C

TheMadFool. I think you don't understand what I am trying to say. I will make another attempt and approach it slightly differently. On the one hand it is possible to distinguish a person's history. That is what a biographer will do when writing the biography of eg a well-known politician: he will record all the important events of this person's life and present them as facts, mostly objective ones, in a chronological sequence. In this sense the term "history" is used in a way where it can be "distinguished" in the subject's life and people will be talking about his history - in other words referring to him/her as "having" a history. The main point here is that although a subject's history can be "distinguished" theoretically as in a biography, this way of looking at history is a superficial way of doing it and creates a false image of what a person's history really is at a more fundamental level. Although the subject's history can be distinguished, it can never be "separated" from him/her, because it is intrinsically a "part" of him/her. It is in fact so close to him/her that this person cannot be the being who he/she is without this history. This "history" is what has "made" him/her the person who he/she is. (And I'm not using the word "made" in a deterministic sense.). To express this extremely close relationship between subject and history we can state that the subject is what he/she has become in his/her history. Therefore he/she is his/her history. In this sense (human) being is identified with history, emphasizing history's role in the nature of human being. I hope this attempt has contributed at least something to make my position clearer? (Bearing in mind that it might be that I haven't succeeded in my attempt.)

180 Proof

One aspect of human being which is often neglected philosophically is its relationship to history. — Daniel C

I don't agree. But assuming this is correct, why do you think this is so? Why would philosophers "neglect" the relationship of human being to history?

[ ... ] it can never be justified to state that someone "has" a history. Much nearer to the truth will be to state that someone is what he/she has become in his/her history. In other words, you, I and all of us, we are our history. The role of history should thus not be restricted to cultural philosophy, but should be given an ontological position in its role of making up the picture of the nature of human being! — DanielC

No doubt. How could (modern) philosophy as a whole overlook what you say here - if that's the case (which it isn't)? :chin:

Streetlight

You might enjoy some Foucault, OP. He does alot of what you say has been neglected. You'll also much in Heidegger on this theme, as Eee said. And a great deal elsewhere, if you seek it out.

History and human being

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions