History: Do we learn history's lessons?

[LightSun]

"I've said the human race has not evolved emotionally or spirituality in six thousand years. Think of the wisdom of the ancients: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Mahavira, Lao Tzu, Buddha and Jesus. These are perennial wisdom sayings. However until we as a society start to teach critical thinking skills and how to reason judicially we will not have the propensity of truly understanding these ancient wisdom sayings from the inside out.

Think, the groundbreaking technology in science-and yet we've not evolved in the truest sense with our humanity either spiritually or emotionally. It seems each generation repeats basic human flaws. When there is a cycle of dysfunction then the dysfunction continues. It is either repeated or overcompensated two out of three times. Sometimes through resiliency mistakes are learned from, but this is one out of three individual persons. One thing that has helped us evolve are our laws. These laws help to protect society, but change is slow.

The laws all have been fought and resisted by mankind. More alarming is how fast we can revert to a bestial complex. If there was to be a disaster where we lost technology due to say a nuclear holocaust we would quickly revert to savagery. Man is an irrational rational species. The use of reason is not innate. For this reason cognitive mindfulness needs to be implemented in the school systems. It is not as of now taught in our school systems because not enough attention and priority to it has been given. Not enough attention and priority have been given to discipline our minds and learning to think with critical reason.

To just think that one will be a well rounded rational being without the needed training is unrealistic. The other component along with reason is compassion and empathy. Empathy classrooms need be implemented. Humanity and learning to be humane is not a given. Ignorance has been with the human species since the beginning of time and it will continue into the next generation unless we grow into a much more enlightened society where human compassion and reason is learned at a young age.

It starts with the children if we want an enlightened future. If we keep our current school structure we will advance in a technological sense. If we wish to evolve as a human race then a paradigm shift in the school system is needed otherwise our society will only replicate societal ills. The way out of the impasse is to teach children, the next generation how to reason and think as well behave humanely towards their classmates via empathy classes.

Learn critical thinking plus true empathy. In this way only do I see true spiritual as well emotional maturity with the possibility of evolution. Too many wisdom sayings are quite frankly wrong. First we must put our fundamental beliefs to the test of science methodology. They are all or nothing, black and white generalizations. It is through this process we can weed out dogma. Indoctrination into dogma comes from multiple sources. Dogma conceivably can occur in a family's system of beliefs as well mores.

It also comes from nationalism and religious beliefs, all of this before the person possesses or can be taught critical thinking. The self-righteous who held under the sway of anger are wrong. Dogma and superstition are outrageous nonetheless this society (Indeed every society) can and is manipulated into buying with a false set of beliefs. We are held in thrall in our world to illusions such as fame, beauty, power and wealth. Another trap is we have yet to make the subconscious conscious through mental discipline.

Hence we fall victim to denial, rationalization, emotional reasoning and blind spots. I’ve articulated my standing on reason as well critical thought is much needed. In addition the development of emotional intelligence. This entails communication skills and active listening skills. We can never learn or know too much. He or she who is on the path realizes the more they know, the more ignorant they realize they truly are.

One who gets secure in his or her own position is not challenged, and that is a shame. For that is when growth stands still and one stagnates in their own moral self-righteousness. The self-righteous have started wars. What are we to do? Stop being self-righteous and use reason instead.”

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

nah bro, it's totes boring.

 

[Litvyak]

The question is not whether we learn from history, but what history means + if there's anything to learn from it and if so, how.
If we define history as the sum total of past experiences then yes, obviously we do learn from history, I cannot imagine how induction would work otherwise. If you define it an interrelated set of key events and processes, it's difficult to see how one could learn from it (I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't see how). One of the key issues is that of an infinitely large amount of variables influencing an outcome: by modifying the usual skeptical argument, it's reasonable to contest whether we can draw conclusions from how group x acted in a certain historical situation since our present socioeconomic conditions are so vastly different. The other, perhaps more important isse is that the present keeps rewriting our conception of the past - if this is the case, how do we learn from something that is in flux, especially if the criterion we use to evaluate the past is constantly shifting as well? This is why speculative philosophies of history, e.g. that of Spengler, Vico or Hegel, are outmoded these days.

One of the possible conclusions is to assume there's nothing to be learned from history if we follow the second definition, but this strikes me as an inadequate solution. I don't know. Does anyone have anything to add?

 

[LightSun]

History: Do we actually learn lessons from history? Or are we rather doomed in a repetitive cycle of ignorance? If we don't learn from histories mistakes how is progress achievable for us?
What is the fundamental reason each generation even with the best of intentions repeat mistakes?

 

[Lib]

The question is not whether we learn from history, but what history means + if there's anything to learn from it and if so, how.
If we define history as the sum total of past experiences then yes, obviously we do learn from history, I cannot imagine how induction would work otherwise. If you define it an interrelated set of key events and processes, it's difficult to see how one could learn from it (I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't see how). One of the key issues is that of an infinitely large amount of variables influencing an outcome: by modifying the usual skeptical argument, it's reasonable to contest whether we can draw conclusions from how group x acted in a certain historical situation since our present socioeconomic conditions are so vastly different. The other, perhaps more important isse is that the present keeps rewriting our conception of the past - if this is the case, how do we learn from something that is in flux, especially if the criterion we use to evaluate the past is constantly shifting as well? This is why speculative philosophies of history, e.g. that of Spengler, Vico or Hegel, are outmoded these days.

One of the possible conclusions is to assume there's nothing to be learned from history if we follow the second definition, but this strikes me as an inadequate solution. I don't know. Does anyone have anything to add?

Well, you make a good point here - how to judge whether a solution in one situation is adequate in another? Yet, the flux may have different characteristics in different region of the pipeline but they always abide by the same physical laws. History is to learn the fundamental 'laws', the nature of stuff.

 

[Lib]

History: Do we actually learn lessons from history? Or are we rather doomed in a repetitive cycle of ignorance? If we don't learn from histories mistakes how is progress achievable for us?
What is the fundamental reason each generation even with the best of intentions repeat mistakes?

One of the things that we must have drawn from history so far is that people repeat mistakes. I mean, it's probabilistically impossible to expect something else from them, at least in our times. But the 'good' news is that we make new mistakes too, so we [DEL]learn[/DEL] forget something new every day.

 

[LightSun]

One of the things that we must have drawn from history so far is that people repeat mistakes. I mean, it's probabilistically impossible to expect something else from them, at least in our times. But the 'good' news is that we make new mistakes too, so we learn something new every day.

One of the reason I feel that we repeat mistakes is because we are not a species that has a shared memory of its ancestors of lessons learned. One starts as a blank slate. Wisdom can not be taught. Knowledge can be learned by rote memorization. Wisdom however has to come from within. One must come to these truths by themselves so that it becomes a part of you. That is one reason why there are so many parallel sayings from different sources. Each individual who has the penchant, aptitude and interest in being introspective and reflective first studies the texts of the ancient masters such as Mahavira, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Jesus among a pantheon of great minds.

It is not enough to memorize or read either scriptures or secular wisdom. You merely memorizing wise sayings or religious texts does not make an inner transformation. When push comes to shove and the adversities of life strike, people will revert to their primitive emotions with such cognitive distortions as blind spots, rationalizations, denial and emotional reasoning to name a few. All manner of evil has been perpetrated by learned and supposedly good men. This is because they fall prey to base emotion and are not grounded in mindful critical thinking together with possessing empathy.

Without these two key attributes of the human race being developed history will repeat itself. It has always been my penchant that these two disciplines of learning how to think with critical reason and developing our empathy for our fellow man as well as for all life forms should be part of the curriculum in our education.

 

[LightSun]

"I've generally said that some religions teach you what to do but not how to practically apply it. There are faith practices who say they believe in this or that but as a human being still are susceptible to blind spots, rationalization, denial and other defense mechanisms. One of the reason I feel that we repeat mistakes is because we are not a species that has a shared memory of its ancestors of lessons learned. One starts as a blank slate. Wisdom can not be taught. Knowledge can be learned by rote memorization. Wisdom however has to come from within. One must come to these truths by themselves so that it becomes a part of you.

That is one reason why there are so many parallel sayings from different sources. Each individual who has the penchant, aptitude and interest in being introspective and reflective first studies the texts of the ancient masters such as Mahavira, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Jesus among a pantheon of great minds. It is not enough to memorize or read either scriptures or secular wisdom.
You merely memorizing wise sayings or religious texts does not make an inner transformation. When push comes to shove and the adversities of life strike, people will revert to their primitive emotions with such cognitive distortions as blind spots, rationalizations, denial and emotional reasoning to name a few.

All manner of evil has been perpetrated by learned and supposedly good men. This is because they fall prey to base emotion and are not grounded in mindful critical thinking together with possessing empathy. Without these two key attributes of the human race being developed history will repeat itself. It has always been my penchant that these two disciplines of learning how to think with critical reason and developing our empathy for our fellow man as well as for all life forms should be part of the curriculum in our education.

That is a reason I've espoused to learn cognitive mindfulness and empathy in our education system. "Tell me what to do and I shall forget it but let me have hands on experience and incorporate it into my repertoire and it becomes a part of me. This is lasting and people will finally walk their talk for true wisdom comes from within and cannot be transferred by mere word. That's hearing but not understanding and coming into one's own spiritual seed of development."

 

[Lib]

One of the reason I feel that we repeat mistakes is because we are not a species that has a shared memory of its ancestors of lessons learned. One starts as a blank slate. Wisdom can not be taught. Knowledge can be learned by rote memorization. Wisdom however has to come from within. One must come to these truths by themselves so that it becomes a part of you. That is one reason why there are so many parallel sayings from different sources. Each individual who has the penchant, aptitude and interest in being introspective and reflective first studies the texts of the ancient masters such as Mahavira, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Jesus among a pantheon of great minds.

It's not realistic to expect from people to have the same potential or interests like yourself. Besides the existence of people with any interests and abilities is meaningful from evolutionary and survival point of view. If everybody was an intellectual, the human race would have become extinct by now.

It is not enough to memorize or read either scriptures or secular wisdom. You merely memorizing wise sayings or religious texts does not make an inner transformation. When push comes to shove and the adversities of life strike, people will revert to their primitive emotions with such cognitive distortions as blind spots, rationalizations, denial and emotional reasoning to name a few. All manner of evil has been perpetrated by learned and supposedly good men. This is because they fall prey to base emotion and are not grounded in mindful critical thinking together with possessing empathy.

Without these two key attributes of the human race being developed history will repeat itself. It has always been my penchant that these two disciplines of learning how to think with critical reason and developing our empathy for our fellow man as well as for all life forms should be part of the curriculum in our education.

We already learn humanities and science in school which is supposed to be enough. It's more about your surroundings and genetics that shape the way you experience and interpret things. If people have more primitive mindset, it normally is because they have been exposed to this kind of environment. I mean, it's complex.

Regarding the repetition of history, it doesn't come from the masses, it comes from the rulers - they make the same mistakes over and over again expecting different results. But may be you should give example of what you mean.

 

[Agent Washington]

If there's something to be drawn from historical lessons, it's that people either never know enough about history to not repeat their lessons, or they simply don't care.

 

[rav3n]

In order for humankind to progress, there needs to be one global culture looking towards the advancement of all of humanity. This won't happen with divisive religion since religion and all its splintered sects, are social engineering vehicles for power mongering cult leaders.

The past should be screaming at people that religion is at core of the worst human tragedies. But what underpins that, is the inherent human flaw of tribalism which circles back to one global progressive culture being the cure. Of course then, power mongers will drive divisive wedges and the cycle of destruction begins anew.

tl;dr...humans are hooped.

 

[Virtual ghost]

That also depends on how you define "learn". Some of the worst episodes in history happened exactly because someone was inspired by it. (nation, payback, let's finnish .... type of thinking )

 

[cascadeco]

Since we aren't ever all going to have the same values, personal survival and gains will pretty much always take precedence over any larger global concerns, we will always have power dynamics and those who want to exert power and force, and lots of other individual and group psychology stuff, no, we aren't ever going to learn from history and we are doomed to repeat cycles.

 

[Tater]

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." - Hegel

Crazy fucker, but he had a point here.

People hardly learn from their own mistakes, so reliably deriving lessons from history books has an even lower chance of happening.

Not that it's impossible. I just don't think it happens on the regular.

 

[Litvyak]

Yet, the flux may have different characteristics in different region of the pipeline but they always abide by the same physical laws. History is to learn the fundamental 'laws', the nature of stuff.

This is entirely irrelevant if 1) the variables are infinite in number, 2) what we consider a 'historical event' is continuously reshaped by the present. There is no possible way to establish a deterministic framework where certain historical situations are shown to produce a limited number of outputs, which means there are no lessons to be learned from history in the sense I was referring to. Even if there were such a framework, it would immediately alter our behaviour, making an analogy between a past and a future event problematic.

 

[Lib]

This is entirely irrelevant if 1) the variables are infinite in number, 2) what we consider a 'historical event' is continuously reshaped by the present. There is no possible way to establish a deterministic framework where certain historical situations are shown to produce a limited number of outputs, which means there are no lessons to be learned from history in the sense I was referring to. Even if there were such a framework, it would immediately alter our behaviour, making an analogy between a past and a future event problematic.

You can't use a completely deterministic approach (which you technically don't use for the flux either, because Newtonian laws are nothing more than an isolated case of approximation of quantum field theory with which I only mean that the QFT math is unnecessarily more precise, not that the events are not completely non-random by nature) but you can most certainly use a probabilistic one and find certain tendencies. Just think about how revolutions and change of governmental systems occur, there is always a pattern: the majority, the hungrier, the barbarians overthrow the rich, self-serving and lazy ones because the former have larger incentive to look for a change than the latter have to preserve the status quo. That's just one example but I challenge you to point out just one case from history that contradicts my statement. The variables are many but there are visibly a few most important among them.

 

[Litvyak]

Just think about how revolutions and change of governmental systems occur, there is always a pattern: the majority, the hungrier, the barbarians overthrow the rich, self-serving and lazy ones because the former have larger incentive to look for a change than the latter have to preserve the status quo. That's just one example but I challenge you to point out just one case from history that contradicts my statement. The variables are many but there are visibly a few most important among them.

This is not a strong inductive argument at all, it is a sweeping generalisation. We do not have a strong enough epistemic background even to point to probabilities, one reason being that our criterion for "important historical variable" changes as events unfold. The Homeric epoch used to be regarded as a series of historical events, we now consider it mostly myth. What we understood as cornerstones or important events when we used to interpret history as the unfolding of the human intellect through contradictions stopped being cornerstones or important events once we abandoned the ideology (e.g. the Spartacus revolution) etc. You can drop the demand for determinism, but you still cannot predict the movement of the masses with reasonable probability unless you're at the forefront of events, at which point your argument ceases to be a historical one (e.g. you're about to be hanged by an angry mob). If you could, you'd have predictive history as well as (quasi-)predictive economics and future studies (don't get me started on the latter, it's barely more useful than Tarot or haruspicy).

A very obvious change of governmental systems that contradicts your statement is the series of revolutions in certain Eastern Bloc countries around 1989 and 1990, when a small minority of intellectuals orchestrated, with the help of western powers and in the wake of a crumbling SU, an overthrow of Soviet nomenclature and organised democratic elections. Just off the top of my head. As for revolutions: if you define revolution as the poor majority overthrowing the rich minority then sure, you are right, but your claim is reduced to a tautology. If you extend the definition to "a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power", you will find plenty of "revolutions" which do not fit your description.

 

[Tater]

Hey. So.

I just wanted to say that it appears as though your avatars have some latent sexual tension going on between them. ^

That's all.

 

[Lib]

This is not a strong inductive argument at all, it is a sweeping generalisation. We do not have a strong enough epistemic background even to point to probabilities, one reason being that our criterion for "important historical variable" changes as events unfold. The Homeric epoch used to be regarded as a series of historical events, we now consider it mostly myth. What we understood as cornerstones or important events when we used to interpret history as the unfolding of the human intellect through contradictions stopped being cornerstones or important events once we abandoned the ideology (e.g. the Spartacus revolution) etc. You can drop the demand for determinism, but you still cannot predict the movement of the masses with reasonable probability unless you're at the forefront of events, at which point your argument ceases to be a historical one (e.g. you're about to be hanged by an angry mob). If you could, you'd have predictive history as well as (quasi-)predictive economics and future studies (don't get me started on the latter, it's barely more useful than Tarot or haruspicy).

Well, all we know about anything is generalization - observing a process in details is impossible or better yet relative.

I'll repeat myself: principles and patterns are evident despite of the details changing. Doesn't matter where you stand. Do you consider that falling from a tall building is the only way to observe gravity? I mean, a pattern would exist and could be examined even if you read it in a book. When patterns overlap, it gets more confusing but it doesn't mean that they don't work every time.

Market is hard to predict, I'll give you that, but it's because you have no control over the variables, while other people have. You simply can't have the whole information that you need to have. Yet, market is governed by major indicators, influenced severely by geopolitics. There is certainly a pattern in how crisis happen.

A very obvious change of governmental systems that contradicts your statement is the series of revolutions in certain Eastern Bloc countries around 1989 and 1990, when a small minority of intellectuals orchestrated, with the help of western powers and in the wake of a crumbling SU, an overthrow of Soviet nomenclature and organised democratic elections. Just off the top of my head. As for revolutions: if you define revolution as the poor majority overthrowing the rich minority then sure, you are right, but your claim is reduced to a tautology. If you extend the definition to "a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power", you will find plenty of "revolutions" which do not fit your description.

Well, technically the Eastern bloc countries didn't start a real revolution, it all started from USSR anyway (perestroika). Besides, outside forces were involved. In fact, USSR first and foremost lost the economical war, and hadn't it loosen its grip, the situation would have unfolded into a full blown hungry majority revolution. It's only because certain powers learn from the history, that Europe has been in such a stable state lately. Not saying that what they have learned is enough though because reality shows differently.