Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only


Can we really tell history "as it was"? posted 26 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionCan we really tell history "as it was"? by Sokar, Auditor

I should reread posts then, I suppose.. The descussion was telling history is it was, so getting into mentality wasn't really the first thing I thought of.

Though on this account I still wouldn't agree with that statement completely. I agree, that by looking at present we can actually (partially)understand the past. But in doing so, there is no need to see the difference between technological usage. The needs and wants have remained the same. One does not want that which he does not know exists. With this, I mean that our society, that of past and the less developed world, still primarily have the same drive for wants and needs.
In this sense, the mentality has not changed, all the factors you name are still existing in our society, they seem more remote maybe, but I doubt they didn't seem so in the past.

What I am saying here is that mentality is only evident in things that do not affect one's socio-economic needs. In other words, mentality is another psycological invention to analyse (abnormal) human behaviour in present day society, yet forgetting that all behaviour is simply human. What could be part of mentality is the way of tought, the difference in understanding and perceiving things throughout time, but the correct term for that would be episteme. But here I would agree with Alderion as in how far there will be an understanding. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown