Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Feb 2014, 6:13 pm

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Is this really true?
What if we know history and repeat it anyway?
Schopenhauer said history is comprised of the same events under different cloaks or disguises, as in different locations, names, people, but the events are similar or the same.

How likely are we to repeat history regardless of what we know?



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

11 Feb 2014, 8:34 pm

To start, I believe the correct quote goes along the lines of, "Those who fail to LEARN THE LESSONS OF HISTORY are doom to repeat it."

Anyone can know history, but few actually digest and learn the lessons those events have to teach us. That's why societies make the same mistakes over and over again. In each cycle, you see a small but vocal group shouting, "The ____ did the same thing and it resulted in ____!" The small group is ignored, the society makes the same choice...and reaps a similar outcome.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,136
Location: temperate zone

11 Feb 2014, 9:29 pm

Actually its:

"Those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santayana

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Some other favorite quotes:


Hegel said "We learn from history that we don't learn from history."

But Eric Severied once quoted someone as saying "We learn from history that we CAN'T learn from history."

Mark Twain wrote that "History doesn't repeat. But it sure does rhyme."



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

11 Feb 2014, 10:33 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Is this really true?
What if we know history and repeat it anyway?
Schopenhauer said history is comprised of the same events under different cloaks or disguises, as in different locations, names, people, but the events are similar or the same.

How likely are we to repeat history regardless of what we know?


1. Note: One admirable part of Schopenhauer's philosophy is his rejection of the religious dogma that animals exist to provide for humans.

2. I am not sure why knowing history will change anything, because people will interpret history to fit their objectives.

What did we learn from Hiroshima, and Nagasaki ? Build more destructive bombs ? Or are we repeating history, because we were suppose to stop using bombs ?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Feb 2014, 10:54 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Is this really true?
What if we know history and repeat it anyway?
Schopenhauer said history is comprised of the same events under different cloaks or disguises, as in different locations, names, people, but the events are similar or the same.

How likely are we to repeat history regardless of what we know?


1. Note: One admirable part of Schopenhauer's philosophy is his rejection of the religious dogma that animals exist to provide for humans.

2. I am not sure why knowing history will change anything, because people will interpret history to fit their objectives.

What did we learn from Hiroshima, and Nagasaki ? Build more destructive bombs ? Or are we repeating history, because we were suppose to stop using bombs ?

You see, Schopenhauer's poodles provided love and companionship for him which is in line with animals providing for humans. I have to partially reject this idea because all species are interdependent on each other, even humans. It's just part of life. One thing Schopenhauer studied was the natural sciences and he could see this all around him in the natural world, this consumption of the living by the living. In order to be alive, you need to end the life of something that was once alive, whether it be plant or animal, and this is a reoccurring fact on each link of the food chain except humans are on top and rarely get consumed.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Feb 2014, 10:55 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Actually its:

"Those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santayana

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Some other favorite quotes:


Hegel said "We learn from history that we don't learn from history."

But Eric Severied once quoted someone as saying "We learn from history that we CAN'T learn from history."

Mark Twain wrote that "History doesn't repeat. But it sure does rhyme."

Thanks for the exact quote.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

12 Feb 2014, 6:52 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Is this really true?
What if we know history and repeat it anyway?
Schopenhauer said history is comprised of the same events under different cloaks or disguises, as in different locations, names, people, but the events are similar or the same.

How likely are we to repeat history regardless of what we know?


1. Note: One admirable part of Schopenhauer's philosophy is his rejection of the religious dogma that animals exist to provide for humans.

2. I am not sure why knowing history will change anything, because people will interpret history to fit their objectives.

What did we learn from Hiroshima, and Nagasaki ? Build more destructive bombs ? Or are we repeating history, because we were suppose to stop using bombs ?

The point of having "The Bomb" isn't to actually use it. The point of The Bomb is deterrence. We're all aware of how devastating a nuclear engagement would be. It's like paddling a child for punishment. You don't want to actually go there, but having the paddle hanging on the wall in plain sight is enough for the kid to think twice about misbehaving (no, I don't personally use a paddle).

Nuclear proliferation is like sex. Everyone wants to do it, is a little bit nervous about it the first time, and enjoys it too much after the first few times to stop. So we end up telling everyone else how much regret it and try to keep them from starting it, and for those of us who do it, we're too late trying to find the best protection. Reckless behavior often ends in disease or a big baby nobody wants.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

12 Feb 2014, 9:10 am

There's definitely more than a grain of truth to the saying. I think this is because in general terms all humans have the same 'firm ware' and thus tend to act and react in similar ways...

If you want to see this in action all you need to do is read a few ancient Roman manuscripts. Cicero's political speeches and defense monologues sound surprisingly modern as do Seneca's social commentaries...

Anybody who doubts how destructive economic inequality can be to a Republic needs to take a look at Roman history from, say, the end of the Second Punic War to the rise of Caesar...

We are beginning to make similar mistakes for, I think, similar reasons.

Also, check out the introduction to Livy's history of Rome and see if you think his criticisms are applicable to the US. It sure seems so to me. Of course, Livy was writing about the past to inform his readers about the present.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah../Livy/Livy01.html

Quote:
There is this exceptionally beneficial and fruitful advantage to be derived from the study of the past, that you see, set in the clear light of historical truth, examples of every possible type. From these you may select for yourself and your country what to imitate, and also what, as being mischievous in its inception and disastrous in its issues, you are to avoid. Unless, however, I am misled by affection for my undertaking, there has never existed any commonwealth greater in power, with a purer morality, or more fertile in good examples; or any state in which avarice and luxury have been so late in making their inroads, or poverty and frugality so highly and continuously honoured, showing so clearly that the less wealth men possessed the less they coveted. In these latter years wealth has brought avarice in its train, and the unlimited command of pleasure has created in men a passion for ruining themselves and everything else through self-indulgence and licentiousness. But criticisms which will be unwelcome, even when perhaps necessary, must not appear in the commencement at all events of this extensive work. We should much prefer to start with favourable omens, and if we could have adopted the poets' custom, it would have been much pleasanter to commence with prayers and supplications to gods and goddesses that they would grant a favourable and successful issue to the great task before us.


As you can see, Livy's entire purpose is to use past events to instruct his readers about how they should and shouldn't behave in the present--this has been a common approach to history throughout most of history....

So, even if the actual past events don't provide lessons for the present time, the written history will by the time historians get done with it!
:wink:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

12 Feb 2014, 12:51 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
There's definitely more than a grain of truth to the saying. I think this is because in general terms all humans have the same 'firm ware' and thus tend to act and react in similar ways...

If you want to see this in action all you need to do is read a few ancient Roman manuscripts. Cicero's political speeches and defense monologues sound surprisingly modern as do Seneca's social commentaries...

Anybody who doubts how destructive economic inequality can be to a Republic needs to take a look at Roman history from, say, the end of the Second Punic War to the rise of Caesar...

We are beginning to make similar mistakes for, I think, similar reasons.

Also, check out the introduction to Livy's history of Rome and see if you think his criticisms are applicable to the US. It sure seems so to me. Of course, Livy was writing about the past to inform his readers about the present.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah../Livy/Livy01.html

Quote:
There is this exceptionally beneficial and fruitful advantage to be derived from the study of the past, that you see, set in the clear light of historical truth, examples of every possible type. From these you may select for yourself and your country what to imitate, and also what, as being mischievous in its inception and disastrous in its issues, you are to avoid. Unless, however, I am misled by affection for my undertaking, there has never existed any commonwealth greater in power, with a purer morality, or more fertile in good examples; or any state in which avarice and luxury have been so late in making their inroads, or poverty and frugality so highly and continuously honoured, showing so clearly that the less wealth men possessed the less they coveted. In these latter years wealth has brought avarice in its train, and the unlimited command of pleasure has created in men a passion for ruining themselves and everything else through self-indulgence and licentiousness. But criticisms which will be unwelcome, even when perhaps necessary, must not appear in the commencement at all events of this extensive work. We should much prefer to start with favourable omens, and if we could have adopted the poets' custom, it would have been much pleasanter to commence with prayers and supplications to gods and goddesses that they would grant a favourable and successful issue to the great task before us.


As you can see, Livy's entire purpose is to use past events to instruct his readers about how they should and shouldn't behave in the present--this has been a common approach to history throughout most of history....

So, even if the actual past events don't provide lessons for the present time, the written history will by the time historians get done with it!
:wink:

You would think it's because of World War ii which was so awful and bloody, western countries would swear off wars forever but this hasn't been the case. Actually, it's because of the Vietnam War and heavy antiwar activism against it warfare significantly changed. It wasn't even because of World War ii. In fact, Vietnam was on it's way to becoming just as bloody despite everyone knowing their history.



salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

12 Feb 2014, 1:59 pm

I would just like to thank ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo for all the thought provoking and interesting threads!
THANK YOU :)


The saying contains a deep wisdom, but as we all know the wisest course of action is seldom taken.


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

12 Feb 2014, 2:13 pm

^^^ Okay...

A couple of thoughts here....

Comparing WWII and Vietnam doesn't really hold up because those wars were so different. During WWII the Axis powers represented and existential threat to the United States. WWII was not a war of choice, it was a war of survival. We acted far more ruthlessly during that war, but most people thought is was justified. However, Vietnam was a purely optional war. It was simply the ultimate extension of the US cold war policy of containment with regard to the USSR and communism. And, everyone in American did not agree with the policy.

A much better war to compare Vietnam with is the Spanish-American war. That was a war of choice, and the ultimate expression of America's imperial policy of the time. That war and the ensuing occupation of the Philippines did cause quite a bit of protest at the time.
Vietnam had more protests for two reasons: It had far better press coverage--for the first time, the horrors of war could be seen from the comfort of your own living room--and a more liberal interpretation American Civil rights--we used to jail war protestors, ask Eugene Debs...


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

12 Feb 2014, 2:42 pm

salamandaqwerty wrote:
I would just like to thank ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo for all the thought provoking and interesting threads!
THANK YOU :)


The saying contains a deep wisdom, but as we all know the wisest course of action is seldom taken.

This is so sweet!! You're welcome!
And thank you for the compliment!! !



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

12 Feb 2014, 2:50 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
^^^ Okay...

A couple of thoughts here....

Comparing WWII and Vietnam doesn't really hold up because those wars were so different. During WWII the Axis powers represented and existential threat to the United States. WWII was not a war of choice, it was a war of survival. We acted far more ruthlessly during that war, but most people thought is was justified. However, Vietnam was a purely optional war. It was simply the ultimate extension of the US cold war policy of containment with regard to the USSR and communism. And, everyone in American did not agree with the policy.

Keep in mind what Schopenhauer observed. History is the same or similar events repeating themselves over and over only with different coverings, like names, dates, locations, and people. This rings true for Vietnam. Look at the American Civil War. Deadly. Large numbers of casualties. People knew the lessons, they experienced a lot of hardships and trauma. True, we haven't had a civil war since but you would think we would have learned not to involve ourselves in any war that promises a large amount of casualties yet we still involved ourselves.
Vietnam has proven a real paradigm shift ending the traditional type war where you send thousands in to get shot like decoy ducks at a shooting gallery. Long term prognosis has yet to be determined since people tend to desensitize with the passage of time.

Quote:
A much better war to compare Vietnam with is the Spanish-American war. That was a war of choice, and the ultimate expression of America's imperial policy of the time. That war and the ensuing occupation of the Philippines did cause quite a bit of protest at the time.
Vietnam had more protests for two reasons: It had far better press coverage--for the first time, the horrors of war could be seen from the comfort of your own living room--and a more liberal interpretation American Civil rights--we used to jail war protestors, ask Eugene Debs...

The quote does not mention how wars are covered, just if you do not learn the lessons or know about history, you are condemned to repeat it and people will repeat and repeat this phrase mindlessly when discussing wars in particular. It's highly suspicious BS, as if they are simply filling a page without putting serious thought into it. The example you just provided is proof!



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

12 Feb 2014, 6:22 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:

]A much better war to compare Vietnam with is the Spanish-American war. That was a war of choice, and the ultimate expression of America's imperial policy of the time. That war and the ensuing occupation of the Philippines did cause quite a bit of protest at the time.
Vietnam had more protests for two reasons: It had far better press coverage--for the first time, the horrors of war could be seen from the comfort of your own living room--and a more liberal interpretation American Civil rights--we used to jail war protestors, ask Eugene Debs...

The quote does not mention how wars are covered, just if you do not learn the lessons or know about history, you are condemned to repeat it and people will repeat and repeat this phrase mindlessly when discussing wars in particular. It's highly suspicious BS, as if they are simply filling a page without putting serious thought into it. The example you just provided is proof!


So, you seem to have two problems....

#1 is reading comprehension. I'm simply comparing and contrasting two similar kinds of wars and explaining the similar reaction people had. That's exactly the point of your topic/quote. You need to go back and read what I wrote again. This time do it slowly and move your lips if you need to...

#2 you seem to think that there's ONLY ONE LESSON TO LEARN FROM HISTORY/WAR. That's simply not true and suggests that you suffer from poor theory of mind in addition to poor reading skills.

I pity you. :wink:


:P


:lol:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Feb 2014, 8:13 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:

]A much better war to compare Vietnam with is the Spanish-American war. That was a war of choice, and the ultimate expression of America's imperial policy of the time. That war and the ensuing occupation of the Philippines did cause quite a bit of protest at the time.
Vietnam had more protests for two reasons: It had far better press coverage--for the first time, the horrors of war could be seen from the comfort of your own living room--and a more liberal interpretation American Civil rights--we used to jail war protestors, ask Eugene Debs...

The quote does not mention how wars are covered, just if you do not learn the lessons or know about history, you are condemned to repeat it and people will repeat and repeat this phrase mindlessly when discussing wars in particular. It's highly suspicious BS, as if they are simply filling a page without putting serious thought into it. The example you just provided is proof!


So, you seem to have two problems....

#1 is reading comprehension. I'm simply comparing and contrasting two similar kinds of wars and explaining the similar reaction people had. That's exactly the point of your topic/quote. You need to go back and read what I wrote again. This time do it slowly and move your lips if you need to...

#2 you seem to think that there's ONLY ONE LESSON TO LEARN FROM HISTORY/WAR. That's simply not true and suggests that you suffer from poor theory of mind in addition to poor reading skills.

I pity you. :wink:


:P


:lol:

You just misunderstood, GS. The quote I referred to was the one about history repeating itself, not your quote which in all fairness was a quote, too, just not as renown but still equally as flawed.

:lol: :twisted: :lol:



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

13 Feb 2014, 10:08 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
You just misunderstood, GS. The quote I referred to was the one about history repeating itself, not your quote which in all fairness was a quote, too, just not as renown but still equally as flawed.

:lol: :twisted: :lol:


Umm, no, I understood perfectly. I WAS referring to your history quote and you still have those problems.


Nice try though.... :roll:

:P


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus