“History Is For Fools”

True, and the Renaissance is an excellent example of this. The birth of that era occurred over a period of several centuries - it didn't magically spring into existence overnight.

 

I would agree with this also, however, I have to wonder if human nature has changed at all over the centuries. Look at the Golden Age of Classical Greece - have we really progressed much since the days of Aristotle, Plato, et al? Certainly, technology has changed, but human beings have not in many respects.

 

Thanks for that. Looks like some interesting reading.

Seems analogous to say two best friends wanting to destroy one another which brings me to

I do agree with you as well but I mentioned that human nature doesn't change at the same pace as human invention. A better analogy for it is like the hare & the tortoise. Sure humans change, just really damned slowly.

I never really though of ancient Greece as being that advanced. I mean they regularly practised slavery which in quite a few states they did as they pleased with them.
Not to mention hundreds of years of warfare.

 

I'd say we have progressed in some ways - We have systems and checks to try and control our more base desires, and we have a more evolved moral code than I believe we have in the past. But a couple thousand years is but a flash in time for an organism. Our base drives and desires are still there, we are just getting better at adapting to ignoring them

 

Your welcome, and if you're interested, I highly recommend Alexander Vasiliev's two volume History of the Byzantine Empire. I don't know about secondary schools in your own country, but back here in the States the Byzantine Empire never got the attention it deserved in World History class.

You make a great point about slavery, so I guess I will have to concede that human nature has changed significantly in some respects.

 

I'll keep a look out for him.
Secondary schools are something of a nasty joke here. I remember that for our non-english history we had to do the rise of Hitler up to '39 and medical history. Utterly tedious and we used Blackadder for historical reference.
Oh well pot luck really.

Well it hasn't really ended. I think the difference is that we know have the will to oppose it. In relatively recently history my country was the 2nd European nation to outlaw slavery and to to end the activity of slavers which is indicative of progress.

In the classical world I think Rome is perhaps the more advanced as they had a habit of incorporating everything from everywhere.

I don't know if you've come across this but this is an example of how we can go backwards sometimes when it comes to ending slavery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMh-vlQwrmU

 

What about when two historians or records agree? Lets say, hypothetically, that Cassius Dio relates agree with the narration of Plutarch, one might become a fool if considering their words as valid?

True or not, accurate or not, writing history is made with a certain intention, it could be false information, it could be real past events. The point is that yes, one can be fooled by the historian, still, not all historians are that corrupt to write lies.

This topic itself is becoming history, and reading it after three months might make you another fool... we have no escape....

 

Unfortunately history can end up being what people make of it and for some it becomes the core of their beliefs and future.

I have an enormous love for history but if you look too deeply for too long into the past then that's exactly where you'll stay.

But ultimately it's not really the really the writers of the time that can turn people into fools but how it's interpreted today.

I mean you need only look at the middle east section of this forum to see that kind of hoo-hah.

 

Unfortunately history can end up being what people make of it and for some it becomes the core of their beliefs and future.

I have an enormous love for history but if you look too deeply for too long into the past then that's exactly where you'll stay.

But ultimately it's not really the really the writers of the time that can turn people into fools but how it's interpreted today.

I mean you need only look at the middle east section of this forum to see that kind of hoo-hah.

In answer to your query

Well generally speaking that relying solely upon two complementary authors does leave room for error but then again there's always going to be an element of that.