History does NOT Repeat
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- If you wish to get a deeper understanding of the subject matter I highly recommend you read the book I present in the video, which will give you an understanding of the matter within the academic field of history. And if youre interested in the more political and historical aspects of the critizism of historicism and the political theories of history, I recommend you read "The Poverty of Historicism" by Karl Popper.
Thank you for watching, sharing and subscribing.
If you wish to support my channel in other ways:
►You can follow me on twitter here:
/ givemethoumemes
►Join my community, give feedback and talk to me here:
derserver.xyz/
►You can support my channel on Patreon here:
/ kraut_and_tea
►And you can also support me on PayPal here:
www.paypal.me/...
You might be interested in this video too:
• Scars of History: Reme...
Thank you again, and don't forget to subscribe to watch more.
►You can follow me on twitter here:
twitter.com/GiveMeThouMemes
►Join my community, give feedback and talk to me here:
derserver.xyz/
►You can support my channel on Patreon here:
www.patreon.com/Kraut_and_Tea
►And you can also support me on PayPal here:
www.paypal.me/KrautandTea
You might be interested in this video too:
ruclips.net/video/9e2AB9ZOLVE/видео.html
Kraut, this is actually the first video of yours I've downvoted. You're going post-modern here, don't do that. You're not making an argument against the cyclic nature of history, you're making an argument against people being wrong about a given event in history, and objective reality doesn't care about your perception of it. People having bad perception doesn't change history, it simply means someone, somewhere, has misidentified events, motives or some other crucial factor, and even then sometimes they're STILL right in identifying a cycle because changing the position of a few snowflakes in an avalanche doesn't stop the avalanche.
The cyclic nature of history doesn't imply that everything repeats itself, just that there are overarching cycles wherein many things repeat. Sometimes they start the same and end completely differently. Sometimes they start completely differently and end in something eerily familiar. Sometimes everything plays out in a similar manner, but all the players and motives are different. But there is in fact a cycle, and that's why you can learn from history.
Kraut , Voltaire died 11 years before the french revolution. Just saying.
As a Greek, let me correct you. Βάρβαρος describe more than a foreigner. In fact a Theban was quite a foreigner for a Corinthian. The barbarian was the one who was not capable to see another himself in other humans. That's the deep meaning. Your analyses it typical of a post denazified German. I tell you with great love, you are deeply biased. Don't draw general conclusions from you very specific point of view.
History of landmasses do repeat. Afganistan is an central an poor mountain country. It's history is predicted by its geography : Invasions from all over Asia. Unsustainable states due to the povrety of the land. Mountain guerrilas on wich regular armys exaust themselves.
You analysis fails because you don't understand that History is about both territoires and cultures. Both predetermine the issue. The same cultural errors end up to the same historical disasters.
Here is an example : The Union Latine was the first attempt to have an unified currency in modern Europe, based on the Franc Germinal (best known as the golden standard). The Union Latine was a french concept and was joined by Swisseland, Spain, Russia but also Greece and Italy.
The French used it as an tool to extend their industrial power. In Greece they build huge infrastructures such as the canal of Corinth, the new port of Athens, the main greek railways, the infrastructures fir the first modern Olympic Games. None was sustanable and Greece declared bankrupcy around 1890. Then Italy introcuced an internal currency in 1896 to avoid bankrupcy. Russia was worried all this will en in a global war. That's why Nicholas 1st organised the first peace conferance ever in Vienna. With no results. The collapse of the Union Latine ended with WW1 and Nicholas was executed with the rest of the Romanov family.
Similarities with the EU are not random. Let me explain :
Greelks are one of the oldest coherent nation on Earth because to both their cultural specificities and the nature of Greece : Large armies starve to death, the country is not suitable to sustain a land empire and its infrastructures (roads, bridges, tunnels). Greeks' infrastructure is and has always been the sea. The French of the 19th century as well as Merkel failed to understand that. They tried to apply to Greece the unsustainable model of large land industrial empires. Grece was busted each time for the same reason, and started the process of the economical collapse of the entire Union. Italy, who has the same problem internaly (the poor Mesio Giorno) followed immediatly and destroyed the iron economical rule.
This is what the new italian government will do and, yes, History predicted it.
Can you list some of your sources?
hey Kraut, great job, greeting from czechia :)
Where’s the Discord for RUclips Academics? Btw, have those academics responded yet?
Mark twain once said: History doesn't repeat itself but from time to time it rhymes. No better way to put it
When history repeats, the price doubles
Like Star Wars
That is the best take on history i have ever heard
“It’s like poetry it rhymes” George Lucas
good one, will use
If history doesn't repeat itself why did my uncle tell me a story about a boy my age that got beat up by his uncle before he beat me up?
Top 10 questions historians can't explain.
Piñata is a great album
Where did he touch you?
Uncles please respond.
Well, are you (Cory) beating your nephew?
I remember hearing once "That those who deny or refuse to admit that history repeats itself are the ones doomed to repeat it"
History repeating itself was never about some unbreakable chain of events that this happens because this happened before and caused that.
its a warning about how certain ways of thinking will lead to certain things if u do not look at where that kind of thinking lead before
perfect!
That's a nice view
Some time ago I read of this general who in one of the world wars, in the middle east, used an invasion route previously used only by Ramses II and managed to surprise and defeat his enemy.
He was later quoted in saying that those who study history can repeat it on purpose.
How about, "History is written by the victor" Perhaps it is not that we are doomed to repeat history by humans are just doomed to repeat themselves over and over due to our very natures. Numerous civilizations, kingdoms and empires have risen and fallen due to the human need to achieve, those who do achieve will always write history to be favorable towards them, even if in their need they bring about the destruction of themselves.
While things can be learned from history, it's important to remember that history books and the such were written by man, studying the past will not give you all the answer and will not make you infallible. Even if you do study history you are more than likely to repeat it because of human nature more than anything else.
Dartchone I think that quote is about not learning from mistakes.
My history teacher always said "history can be seen through 2 lenses, you can look at it from our modern perspective and from how the people at that time looked at what was happening then". I am very grateful to have him explain that to me.
he should've added that, while both are important, conclusions that you draw from either will be wrong
@@doomerbloomer6160 Also looking through the lenses of the past can be deceiving. Looking at the mid 19th century America on Slavery, if you asked a white man, you would get positive answers, and if you asked a black man, it would be the opposite. This would be 2 contradicting answers, and making a conclusion out of that would inevitably refer back to our modern perspectives. Though, the further you go back in history, the less and less perspectives you would get.
Judging History from our modern perspective is useless without the proper context that the history occurred in, otherwise it just devolves into a bunch of yelling about why people who are long since dead are morally bad by todays standards and that's a really boring conversation to have.
@@RenoRebornit's a bit of a dilemma. In a way one shouldn't judge but that makes certain people think some past status quo is good
@@tomlxyz We can acknowledge that Slavery was an atrocity while recognizing that the Society it occurred in had it's justifications and nuances.
For instance, African nations commonly traded in Slaves before we got there. Our involvement escalated that problem 10 fold but the problem still existed without us.
Isn't that so much more of an interesting conversation than "Slavery is bad and you should feel bad"
My High School history teacher said something to me I will never forget and feel is somewhat applicable to this great vid:
"Many people see history as a long list of achievements that should be emulated. But in truth, it is a long list of mistakes that are not to be repeated.
Sometimes in attempting to repeat history, we repeat its mistakes, and thus instead of progressing, we regress."
Damn that’s wise
Honestly, I would love to see your teacher.
that's still historicism though isn't it?
Should’ve been pinned
In this case Renaissance and age of reason wouldn't happened since those Europeans in 15th century really like to repeat/reborn Greek and Roman things in the past and adopted it into modern world. Can't imagine how world without such mindset.
This discussion has probably been repeated in similar conversations throughout history.
so good
The Poverty of Historicism.
But there are no guarantees.
@@tacogodboomdogg I can guarenteen that it will be.
@@Scarletraven87 Time is a flat circle ey?
I would disagree that "Barbarian" had no negative connotations in Herodot's time. It definitely meant someone who was lower than the Greeks.
Found this on r/askhistorians:
"From what we can tell, it varied a lot. While the term definitely had some negative connotations, in practice it didn't necessarily imply a bad sort of people - just people who weren't Greeks. The term allowed the Greeks to define themselves as a group by designating everyone else as a distinct other, marked by their incomprehensible language (the probable origin of the word barbaros is the way the Greeks mimicked the sound of other languages: bar-bar-bar). Others were, of course, not as great as Greeks. But that didn't mean they didn't have anything to offer.
There's a lot of ways in which this ambiguous attitude is expressed. One example is Classical Greek historical accounts. Herodotos, who wrote the history of "the conflict between the Greeks and the barbarians" (Persians), liked to play up the cruelty and despotic rule of the Persian King, and the Persians' lack of respect for Greek laws and traditions. On the other hand, he was clearly in awe of Persian achievements in engineering and logistics, giving a detailed account of the Royal Road, the pontoon bridge the Persians built across the Hellespont, and the canal they dug through Athos. Similarly, Xenophon liked to portray the Persian elite as weak, pudgy and soft, led astray by a life of excessive luxury. On the other hand, he admired the character of his employer Cyrus the Younger and the efficiency with which his autocratic position allowed him to rule and foster his lands. He was also clearly very impressed with Persian gardens, paradeisoi, from which we get our word "paradise".
Another example is cultural interaction. In Athens, after the Greek victory in the Persian Wars, Persian barbarians were increasingly stereotyped as weak, cowardly and effeminate, the natural subordinate of the manly Greeks. They were mocked for their dress (with trousers being the quintessentially barbarian garment that no honest Greek would ever wear) and for their docile enslavement to the Great King. On the other hand, Margaret Miller has demonstrated (Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: a Study in Cultural Receptivity (1997)) that the exact same period saw a huge influence of Persian art and noble habits on the lifestyle of the Athenian elite. Something similar can be said about increasing interactions with the Thracians in what is now Northern Greece. Barbarians were silly, funny-looking foreigners, but they were also useful, powerful, and often an example to fashionable rich kids and political philosophers alike."
Edit: cool 300+ likes, btw Kraut sucks
@@johndough6225 The Greeks basically used the precedent to biological racism and were obsessed with blood and soil. This idea that they were just essentially versions of modern people, integrated with a wider Greek world is not bared in their writings, at all. Being Greek was incredibly important, only a Greek male could ever be fully a human being.
@@kiwikewl I don't think my comment implied they were like modern people at all but I'd be interested in reading more about that
I just copy one part of my comment since you are talking about:
The Greeks used the term barbarian for all non-Greek-speaking peoples, emphasizing their otherness. This was because the language they spoke sounded to Greeks like gibberish represented by the sounds "bar..bar..bar;" the alleged root of the word βάρβαρος. Even today modern Greeks use to say sometimes "bar..bar..bar" for somebody who talks gibberish or talks a lot saying nonsense. I remember my analphabetic grand moms (from Minor Asia) using this "bar..bar..bar" of course pejorative!
And of course they (the ancient) thought that only if you speak Greek "makes sense" what you are talking and only if you speak Greek you can be part of this "hi-class" civilisation.
In the meanwhile we all speak a lot Greek in all European languages, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make as less barbaric.
@@DeltaKapas You do realize that you basically agrred with what I had written, right?
I’m guessing the “Afghanistan was never conquered” saying probably refers to its turbulent, unstable history rather than it being a single, stable unconquerable state.
yeah
He disproves his own thesis, the history of Afghanistan being repeatedly conquered (and liberated). You may as well say a fractal does not repeat.
Every land and nation has been conquered and has probably conquered that means Afghanistan is not special as a matter of fact it is an amalgamation of conquests and it is very young in its current form compared to the length of history that it is attributed to. However history repeats its self in different shades and fashions
@@thegeneralist7527 In general, a fractal *does* not repeat
what kenyan Well, Afghanistan is special because it has historically been a large landmass that has been difficult to exert much control over for its suzerains. There’s a few other areas like this of course, ie yemen, shan, chechnya, etc but afghanistan was a sizeable place at the center of the silk road in history which made it stand out above the rest
well you see the whole problem with invading afghanistan is simply that we are not doing it on horseback. i thought that was obvious.
They did www.google.com/search?q=us+special+forces+horseback+afghanistan&rlz=1C1SFXN_enFI498FI503&sxsrf=ALeKk03rhy4LZn-gjvG5BqupbRbm2og8WA:1594294068694&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv4IadiMDqAhXL0qYKHan5AiAQ_AUoAXoECA0QAw
@@smithfinland214 yeah but did they do it with a grape.
Wait, seriously? No ones done it on horseback?
Ferb, I know what we’re doin today 😎
More to it than that. You need a direct land route between your nation and it.
Waging war from another continent thousands of miles away strains your logistics.
You can thank the Military Industrial Complex for that
Max Weber: "History should not guide our way"
It should only be used to see where we have been before, and correct our course so that we don't walk in circles.
So it technically does guide our way by showing us what has failed
@@ΑντώνιοςΕυάγγελοςΒασιλειάδης yes
It can also remind us of ways we have forgotten to live that may be better than current ones.
Why do hot dogs come in packages of 8 but hot dog buns come in packages of 12?
Capitalism.
What buns do you buy boy? My buns comes in a pack of 16
because they expect you to buy 2 packs of buns and 3 packs of hot dogs.
WHERE'S MY GODDAMN PIZZA ROLLS?
To push more inventory
...but it does rhyme.
The rhyming perspective does limit the predictive power. of history.
A lot of empires rise.
Sometimes it's quite the surprise.
And then when they fall.
It's retroactively seen by all.
Also, pumpkin is the king of pies.
Rhyming is not predictive.
@@skrv8588 but it is fun
George? Is that you?
skrv genius comment
Until nuclear weapons get involved. Then you get a period.
19:36
"Where's Prussia today?"
Me: In my heart
@Fabian Kirchgessner tss tsss ...East-Germany und Saxony-Thurg..
Neu-Izmir ist in der CDU
Atatürk, der neue Herr
Im ZK, Agent aus Türkei
Deutschland, Deutschland, alles ist vorbei!
*sad Fredrick noises
@@robroux5059 *sad NPD noises*
Kaiserboo
@Raul Rajkumar are you indian?
“History is a series of events that lead to the present day”
That’s the only good way I found to describe it
*as documented by humanity
I really like your take but as many have pointed out it is very important to remember that someone had to write down what we perceive as history, also everyone has their own biases and points of view, Herodotus is not called the first "real historian" for nothing, for example a few Egyptians names are known but most of what is left is religious stuff like rituals.
*History has versions by different countries and can be used as casus belli for a war.
womp womp womppp
Simple and straightforward, yet so wise and intelligent. Amazing.
Except that history doesn't lead anywhere.
Afghanistan is a good example of the symptom of Imperial Decay being confused for the cause of Imperial Decay:
So when a Empire, fails at invading, subjugating, pacifying, occupying and assimilating something as easy peasy like Afghanistan into the Empire? It serves as hint to everyone that said Empire is on a steep decline.
This is how everyone I've eve known has interpreted the British Soviet and American occupations? Signals of an empires collapse. Nobody thinks Afghanistan is an enigma, not even Rambo: "you people don't take any shit?"
The history of Afganisthan is actually really interesting. The whole point of it never being conquered can be proven wrong by two words: Greco-Buddhist. After Alexander's empire fell, the region was conquered by Maurian Empire. However, like Egypt and other rgeions, much of Central Asia was already being Hellenized. Soon Afganisthan converted to Buddhism, but it remained culturally greek-ish after, with the likes of the Greco-Bactarian kingdom, which created a very interesting mix of cultures. We had tradionally Buddhist traditions, like monks and legends, but in a traditionally greek style. In fact, it was throgh this Greek Afeganisthan that Buddhism reached China, and then Japan and Korea, not directly from India.
In general, Central Asia is one of the most special regions in the world when it comes to history, and while it is still quite special, it's islamization really destroyed much of what made it special, as did the Mongols and the Russians.
They sure do.
Wow! I never heard about this before. Makes me want to find sources that look at the historical context more.
Woah Woah Woah. I stan for Islam in Khorasan, and I assure you, whether or not it is obvious, Islamization was a good thing.
@@sobitasadullah4517 Islamisation is NEVER a good thing.
Islam is the only thing that could possibly unify the disparate ethnic groups of Khorasan. It made the area somewhat cohesive against all odds. You really wanna tell me that you would prefer an unbelievably messy and centuries-long Greco-Buddhist Warzone to an Islamic warzone on religious lines that existed for 40 years when the west interfered with it? Get real. And as for the deaths in India? The part that was inexcusable, the looting by Timur, wasn't religiously driven. That was a pragmatic and vicious ransacking of the Islamic world's greatest punching bag by one of the world's worst conquerors. Every other death was not intentional extermination of the Hindu population, but a cost of conquest and maintenance of conquered territories. History may be ugly, but I will not be lectured on Imperialism by Westerners. And by the way, who the fuck are those Islamic leaders detailing how many Hindus to kill? Not a single source, and I'm somehow the one in a 'cult'?
16:08 “...what some may call progress, others may call regression...”
Quite a punchy line there, dude. I think I’ll use that one. Certainly something that will stick in my mind when considering various concepts in the future.
Its a useful point when considering veiwpoints, however its use in the video gives the impression that progress isn't tied to anything objective. IE, human mathematical knowledge has progressed over time. Even if someone genuinely thought that that was a regression with regard to their view of where civilization should be going, it doesn't change the fact that our mathematical knowledge has increased tremendously.
Similar arguments apply for quality of life, nearly all material progression, and human well-being
@@La0bouchere that's not the concept of "progress" in the video, is it? Knowledge has definitely advanced, but some of the steps to get here are covered in blood. If one were to consider that the end does not justify the means, then not all knowledge can be considered "progress".
@@La0bouchere Well our knowledge and technology has been steadily advancing yes. But our social history has been one of constant back and forth swinging with some periods being relatively accepting and liberal while others have been totalitarian and backward.
Like for example with the enlightenment era, things actually got substantially worse for women. Before in the medieval period women were given loads of different roles outside of being mothers like seamstresses, brewers, healers and held a lot of respect in their communities. The witch trials then came along to force women into domestic servitude and stripped them of their dignity.
The problem is that while the tools we have available to us do indeed get better, the human beings themselves do not. Every human alive today you may as well have gone back in time and plucked them from the stone age as new born infants. All of societies history has been humans in one way or another wanting to be more then just animals, but not able to fight off the inescapable fact that, that is exactly we are, animals.
That is the absolute subjectivity of the human thought right there. A mathematical equivalence to it is the Chaos Theory. I suggest reading about it and analysing it through a social science lens, and see that even the numbers are ingrained in society.
I believe it is really one of the worst points he made in a video. I usually very much appreciate them, but this one is odd because: in my view, society has DEFINITELY progressed. While some may say capitalism is hell for poor people, it is basically always and basically in ant way better than slavery. Also, the declarations of human rights, and their enforcements, while certainly not perfect, are net positives for society as a whole. Not to mention all the progress brought by agricultural innovation, which in a lot of countries has almost nullified the possibility of starvation. This is of course not widespread homogeneously, but is progressing almost everywhere.
I don't believe societal progress is inevitable, and I know for a fact it isn't permanent, but to say that there aren't some undeniable, objective progresses being made by societies at large is naive to me.
To be fair, that is only one of the many readings of hegel's philosophy, one of the most conservative, and certainly one of the most currently disputed. his philosophy is nowadays mostly read as veiled praises of egalitarianism, and the difficulty of gathering his true intents comes mostly from the fact that he had to disguise his political positions on account of the heavy censorship instituted in almost all monarchies in europe following the end of the first french republic. many current philosophers that study his politics now believe that the best place to get a grip of what he meant in politics is through the insurmountably dense phenomenology of spirit, which is hard enough to grasp without trying to search for his political opinions in the subtext...
as an aside, an anecdotal evidence: hegel once distributed champagne to his students when they were at an art gallery or museum or whatnot, and when asked what was the occasion, he said it was to commemorate the anniversary of the fall of the bastille
My dude literally evokes Max Weber against Hegel, who explicitly vouched for a Hitler style leadership. It is sad how people have to rely on blindspots to get across the totality of their views. Bad scholarship at best but hey its youtube.
Someone made an interesting point about Aurthurian mythology, that being that it was constantly seeing additions and changes as random people just decided to add new stuff. And then, suddenly, society decided that it was only something the past could add to, not the present.
Your take on history reminds me of that. That one part of the world suddenly looked at a single step in a long history and said, "this is what x country/group/region is." If they had found them at any other point in history, it would have been the same.
This is a classic example of quote mining, the actual axiom is "Those who do not learn history, are destined to repeat it". People who adhere to historicism do not respect history, they do not even respect knowledge itself, they like theories, they like lore, which is why they are into pseudohistory and pseudoscience, it's easier to believe in myths and legends, rather than learning the mundane or ugly truths about people or events. In short, historicism is telling history as if it were a fairy tale, that will end with the hero defeating evil, saving the day, and lived happily ever after, if there is one historian I would recommend, it's Eugen Weber, his approach to history continues to influence my learning of the past, and how we should preserve the memories of the present, so generations in the future will not need to write historical fan fictions.
Very few individuals would actually argue that history literally repeats itself. It's a phrase, and anyone with any common sense knows to take it with a healthy pinch of salt. It serves to illustrate the point that there are certain tendencies that frequently prevail over others throughout the course of time, indicating that human psychology rarely expresses any radical change in behaviour, thus bringing about similar courses of events, and by extension familiar outcomes to any who bear witness or study the effect of such consequences. Other factors, such as technological advances or shifts play a larger role in determining real, tangible change in the course of human history. The same instincts tend to express themselves differently in radically different environments. Certain behaviours can and will be manipulated by those on the know also. To my perception, one of the most commonly exploited of these is humanity's basic instinct of tribalism. Think about it. Even if it's just to entertain the thought. Just look around you. As a species, we are becoming more and more dysfunctional throughout time. I'm not speaking morally or ethically here. I'm talking in regards to simple functionality. We are drifting further and further away from expressing our most base instincts in a direct and natural way all the time. True existential crises are perceivably on the horizon, mark my words.
History is undeniably useful. One must learn from one's mistakes.
It's also that very common sense that covers over any further look into how wrongly used and stood by of a phrase it can be.
If history is indeed repeat itself... does that mean another asteroid will hits the Earth and will cause the extinction of Human Race and thus EVERYTHING that was build for centuries will be destroyed and NOTHING will remains except mother nature?
We just aren't capable or not yet technologically advanced for preventing incoming future catastrophic events
I'm pretty sure we are "expressing our most base instincts in a direct and natural way all the time." Especially in secular industrialized democratic countries... sexual acts is one of it.
Drifting away from our base instincts is completely normal as long as we reject the state of nature . We've been doing that since we've developed language. The process of differentiation which the system of language molds into an underpinning of the structure of your cognitive function, will inherently makes you alienated from nature and the most significant aspect of that is becoming aware of the constraints of time and space . The less chaotic your mind gets the more dysfunctional you are as a human being
The only constant in history is: change.
Also : cringe
If history doesn't repeat itself, then why do I keep stubbing my toe on door swells? It really fucking hurts!
@@tumbleeweed3825 nice username
Dialectical Materialism
Then the idea that ''The only constant in history is: change'', as an approach to studying history, is also subject to change
7:10 How did Voltaire see the French Revolution as anything when he was dead?
Good question...
🙃😯🙃😯🙃😯🙃
@Nuclear Confusion
Like Orwell one might say 😉
The ideas that led to the revolution predate it.
that's what I was thinking too
Well, he laid down the foundation for the revolution. We might have fixed some official dates as to when things might have started in full force, but shit was brewing long before that. The pressure was slowly building and Voltaire's writings and criticisms of the Church contributed to it.
I never saw "history repeats itself" as humans going in circles with no free will but more how certain scenarios tend to lead to the same events, like how a place that treats its poor bad enough will eventually have a rebellion, a place rich in one resource becoming poor and turbulent or marginalized groups slowly gaining rights.
"Do you even read Voltaire?!"
I wonder if any living human has read all 20,000 letters and 2,000 books and pamphlets.
@Captive Mind @Not Sorry implies that Voltaire has been misquoted. But looks like a troll. He is not only a troll, looking at his suspended twitter feed he looks like an asshole to.
Academics, please respond.
@Captive Mind I think Nikola Tesla did due to his compulsivity to finish the things he starts with.
DaJudge Who?
I know this is a serious video but I can’t help but imagine this is some sort of guide for playing Victoria 2.
“Reforms” can be the institution of slavery, eliminating labor laws, and preventing elections. Whether you move toward democratic ideals or toward authoritarianism is entirely within your hands.
I guess that could be indicative of society as well. Democracy is relatively new in the world. It is difficult to say whether we will maintain these values or return to pre-enlightenment values.
Comment about Viccy has 3 paragraphs, Viccy 3 confirmed?
>Democracy
>new
What is ancient Athens?
Once I read this, the Vicky 2 soundtrack started playing in my head
@@Parsifal_8 i think he means it being widely used
Democracy is not new at all. What is different this time around is the military and economic power that can be mobilized by an armed mob. A society of rural peasants armed with sticks can be easily suppressed by a tiny armed exploitative elite (see the German peasants' war of the early 1500s) whereas mass produced guns, urbanization and an increased reliance by the highly centralized state on direct tax revenue and popular support made something like the French revolution possible.
It's retarded to think of history as a thing that either has some overarching narrative or goes around in defined cycles. Rather, society is an extremely complicated poorly understood system that can be better analyzed by looking at its past behaviour in the presence of certain inputs, which is what history is. A record of the states of society at a previous point in time, the main use of which is helping us understand this thing which is much greater than any one of us.
Retroactively building a false linear history to justify an ideology is a modernist reaction in a post-modernist world, to recreate meaning and destiny where it's largelly gone and replaced with individualism.
Rewriting history to justify current policy is… pretty much de rigour from the earliest known examples of writing.
Of course history doesn’t LITERALLY repeat itself. Good God, Kraut.
It doesn't repeat itself metaphorically either.
You didn't understand the video. Karl Poppers point is that the future of society is unpredictable, not that history does not repeat itself at all.
Did you even watch the video?
While most people of course know this, they draw connections or similarities between events, characterizing them as to fit with their beliefs. This is present in "movements" or "ages" as well, they are retroactive collections of events that we say caused the Era, but also that the Era caused them, but the Era is itself not historical at all, a modern construction. Dr. Layman uploaded a great video on the topic.
Academics, please respond.
I really dislike how Kraut tries to paint his own relativism and individualism as non-political, as the norm, when it isn't. It's a justification for political liberalism (as Weber was, in fact, an ardent supporter of liberalism). Kraut is as political in his understanding of history as the marxists or the nationalists are, they just admit it openly.
Look everyone, I found the pinko!
@@brandonszpot8948
The who?
don't listen to the other guy you do make a valid point
“The future is just like an exam paper, it changes forms and methods but still the same concept”
-Me probably
In the past few years, I have realized my 3 greatest academic passions. History, psychology, and anthropology. At some point this year, I realized that all 3 are intertwined. One cannot understand history without first understanding what motives go through the minds of those who make it, and how society and environmental factors chance that mindset.
Even three years later I'm still digesting the true depth of these concepts. Personally I kind of thought the train of thought ended abruptly at the end. Regardless, it's troublesome to think back about just how shattering it was to realize that we as a modern society could perceive significant prior human events in such a radically different manner than those who lived during the time (up until the enlightenment it seems), let alone that the entire school of thought surrounding human history I was utilizing, and am still working to overcome, was unknowingly ingrained in my thought process on top of the inherit bias that comes with viewing human choices in such a manner. I believe that the greatest combatant to historisiscm is the phrase "Human Choice", as it drives home the true agency we have in this reality in this context. P.s. That last part has also helped me realize the trauma I've been through, understanding that it wasn't by happenstance that these event occured to me, but by the choices other humans had to have had made along the way, and that it is the same agency, or lack of action on said agency, that is preventing healing, or growth, that which had done the damage in the first place.
Literally all your reading of interpretation of Hegel is wrong. If you had read anything by him, you would clearly read that he states, the reason in history is equally read reasonably (vernünftig) - meaning that the purpose into history is purposefully read, a mutual determination of history and historical reading if you will. Thus for Hegel no vectoral movement into the future determined by a history of repetitions can be given. It can only be accounted for. The fact that you also misread his whole point of historical progression towards freedom (in his philosophy of right, where he gets most of the hate for his prussian state conformism, which has been refuted by many serious hegel scholars) and not prussian autocracy is another symptom of your "neutral" liberal ideologicity which has its rigid eyes stuck behind its curtains of transparence. The fact that you vouch for Max Weber who literally, implicitly vouched for something akin to the Nazi autocraty is another symptom of your ideological rigidness. In a game of hit or miss youtube content, this was a miss, you could have made your point without even getting into Hegel and it would be fine, the fact that you have to rely on an age old illiteratism on Hegel shows the max. Quality of serious youtube content we can get. Next time do more research on things you are going to include in your videos.
source
@@notlucas6859 for which part?
@@doruksahin1840 idk i just like saying source
title:History does NOT Repeat
meanwhile kraut in 2019: It's like China has been studing history for the last hundred years
I mean, the belt and road imitative is already going south, so maybe China trying to repeat history won’t go so well.
It's not natural. It is because the Chinese government is looking for a certain narrative of «This was our place. They took it from us. We will rise again»
China is gg when their one child policy hits
You can still learn from history.
I don't know much about Herodot apart form this video, but I do like the fact that Herodot didn't pass immediate judgement on who was "right" or who was "wrong" in historical events... It's really hard to get taught history this way as a kid... it makes me think that there exists a fair amount of unconscious propaganda or bias in each country's education system... countries will either teach events from mostly their country's perspective, or even choose to not cover certain topics as they should (or not cover them at all).
I wasn't paying enough attention the first time you said barbarian and thought you said Bavarian. I briefly thought "I didn't think Bavaria was a recognized place in that time period" before quickly realizing the mistake
if history doesn't repeat then why are there 2 of these
if history doesn't repeat then why are there 2 of these
Two of wars?
Hegel was absolutely not a "counter revolutionary"-thinker, he did even celebrated the day of the outbreak of the French revolution as a holiday. And surely he did not think highly about the jacobins and supported the Prussian monarchy of his time, but you do when have to take to account that the jacobins were the ones who instituted the reign of terror (who you judging from your video also opposes) and that Prussia still had more liberalish freedoms then pre-revolutionary France and Russia had (for example freedom of religion and relativly much freedom of speech compared to Jacobin France).. So just because some neo-reactionary people like Hegel doesn't it mean that he was the same as them. He was rather an early ninteth century version of a centrist (between the feudal monarchy of the Bourbons on and the Jacobins).So Kraut have done the same mistake he accuses the historicists of doing in the video.
Kraut is philosophically illiterate.
@@ayyguevara8448 You're just a coping Marxist who hates to hear that the vaunted Hegel wasn't what you thought he was.
@@noiamnotjohn3351 why would i care what comments i read when i've read Hegel and have the ability to draw my own conclusions?
Hegel's entire point is that historical progress cannot be judged until it has already happened: "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk." Hegel would be the first to point out that the future cannot be predicted from present circumstances. The dialectic is the endless back and forth between thinking someone is doing one thing, and in reality doing the exact opposite.The video makes a point about not judging the past from present political perspectives, but your entire reading of Hegel is from the standpoint of a condemnation of Naziism, with footage of Hitler giving a speech superimposed on Hegel's face as if his ideas are at all related to Naziism.
Voltaire died well before the French Revolution.
"Who are you, that do not know your history?" Ulysses.
Twisted Hair...his people.
Never thought I'd see a fnv reference here
"Delicious again Peter!"
Only some side-additions:
The Greeks used the term barbarian for all non-Greek-speaking peoples, emphasizing their otherness. This was because the language they spoke sounded to Greeks like gibberish represented by the sounds "bar..bar..bar;" the alleged root of the word βάρβαρος. Even today modern Greeks use to say sometimes "bar..bar..bar" for somebody who talks gibberish or talks a lot saying nonsense. I remember my analphabetic grand moms (from Minor Asia) using this "bar..bar..bar" of course abwertend/pejorative.
And something for the next time you will mansion again the real father of history:
Thucydides / Θουκυδίδης the intonation is on i: Thucyd-I-des
That happens with all greek names end in -idis/ides.
I'm grateful for the work you are doing !
That bar-bar-bar is very interesting. In Dutch we say: bla-bla-bla
Thank you for this video. I never really took the time to think of history this way. It really makes you think as to why history is taught with this language and mindset in schools.
So: rethink the education system from fulfilling rapid progress to defining the direction of progress to understand how to progress to have resources to know what progress is and that knowledge being useful
i mostly view history from a technological lens. im an engineer, so i guess its natural. just an observation though: stone age, bronze age, iron age, industrial age, digital age - seems that technology has a very large hand in human quality of life and human capacity in general. interesting to note that many technological advancements were made in the bronze age but lost in the iron age because the romans got rekt by barbarians who burned everything down and didnt know how the aqueducts worked. so then people started using their streets for sewage, and getting massive plagues as a result because the bacteria had some extremely favorable conditions for growth and transmission with humans.
A very important thing to note about the transition from the bronze age to the iron age was that the absolute collapse of civilisation is a big part of the cause. The international trade routes which allowed bronze to be manufactured, the importing of tin, fell apart as food shortages and pillaging destroyed the empires of the bronze age and forced huge populations back into basic subsistence. Suddenly, the expensive and regressive practice of spending far more time working iron into something usable, became more attractive.
From my point of view it really wasn't until the 18th century when technology really started to define civilisations. The aqueducts and heated floors of of Rome were certainly very impressive but they were not what built Rome, instead it was Roman legion tactics and creation of professional armies that made Rome what it was. But it was as you said still entirely possible for comparatively "primitive" cultures to defeat more advanced ones with the right tactics and enough men.
But by the 18th century and especially the 19th century that had totally changed. Non-industrialised cultures do not defeat industrialised ones no matter how good their leaders are or how many soldiers they throw into the meat grinder. It's why Europe was able to conquer the world with seemingly so little resistance cause technology had advanced to the point where the machines became more important in deciding victory then the humans.
Technology does seem to drive progress. Think of the printing press, the cheap and easy production of text is what made the enlightenment possible.
@madam meof
I would tend to agree with you, though one important counterexample would be horse domestication. The Mongols/steppe tribes of that likeness, as some folks have spoken of, were so totally transformed by the domestication of the horse, redefining their social and religious conceptions aswell as their material and functional dimensions - and it in turn was immensely consequential for China, the Middle East and Europe. I imagine some might quibble about whether that counts as technology, of course.
Teacher: where is Germany.
Me: points at map.
Teacher: and where is Rome.
Me: points at history book
Teacher: and where is Prussia
Me: rips open shirt revealing Iron Cross over my heart.
cring e
So the real Prussia was in us all along?
Where is Prussia?
👉❤
prussia is protestants???
@@fjordtrout yes???
Yeah, this is interesting and all but what about your gay ops?
I can’t even tell if you’re serious or sarcastic. This is Poe’s Law in action.
I wanna know more about the nipple clamps
Kraut is so underrated, as his exposure grows I'm sure he'll be on of the most popular history channels on RUclips
I find it interesting that people are more interested in debating the clickbait title rather than the contents of the video.
Voltaire had been dead for quite some time when the French Revolution broke out.
You can look at the stock market: Historical movements are useful in seeing general trends and patterns, but cannot be used to predict future trends.
13:17 Geralt???
Idk what it is about your videos but they are the only place where I can get my opinions challenged and changed so willingly.
Great work!
"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce" - Marx
Kraut: You must be informed: RUclips is systematically opening some of your videos on my tablet WITH A THUMBS DOWN PRE-SET!!!
I was bent on thumbing you UP to help after what seemingly had happened to you (which I had no idea till today - I am not an avid social media or Internet user [least of all a behind-the-scenes "RUclips world" connosieur], except for mailing, and simple enjoyment of interesting docs freely available on youtube, etc,)....
[NOTE: I stumbled upon one of your videos quite by chance after a long time of not seeing any videos of yours appearing on my initial RUclips screen or whatever it may be called... despite having been subscribed to your channel for at least 2 years before publishing this very comment, which is how I learned about your ordeal.]
... and have become aware of the fact that in SOME cases, I have noticed a thumb-down preset upon opening your video ( the thumb-down hand already coloured blue without my having done anything but simply clicking on your video to start watching it!!).
Just FYI.
Ps: Thank you for your well-documented, hard-working approach to making interesting documents, and your very nicely spoken, proficient use of English. A cool, well educated German gentleman you must be. Thank you. Warmest regards from a south-western european follower and subscriber👍🇩🇪 Keep it up!! Do not despair!! (Hope the info was helpful)
change your password dude
change your password
I think the biggest service Kraut is doing to us is showing us how to pronounce the names of all these people
He pronounces a lot of these names wrong lmao
"Yes," said Captain Picard conceding a point, "But we have evolved."
People when reading about history often suffer from confirmation bias. They want to find similarities between the past and today and when they do, they use it to "prove" that the situations were identical, no matter how many differences there may be.
marxist historians be like
This title aged like ice
turning this into a dichotomy isn't helping. History does repeat itself, but only in retrospect, because the connections can only be made once the events of said "history" has happened. But this is from the academic point of view - of which you'll find MANY analogies of the US and Rome. I think the idiocy is the literal translation thereof...
This reminds me a lot to a term that has been coined in the technology sector as "Moore's Law". Moore's law basically states that the number of transistor in a certain area (a.k.a. transistor density) doubles every two years. This prediction was made in 1965, and for 50 years it held up accurately. But recently, keeping up with that prediction gets even harder and harder, and by now, we've already missed it (although some are still in denial and often change the goalpost with some arbitrary performance metrics etc.).
This made me think that while yes, for some 50 years the law did hold true, but who are making sure it will hold true for the next 2 years? Are scientist and engineers are robots that can make 100% sure that we will get double the transistor density every 2 years? Of course not. We, for decades, took this prediction for granted, without thinking about who's working on it and what if they missed the coveted prediction. But again, this very prediction is made by man, and run by man. Man aren't a wonder machine that can fulfill any prophecy it's being fed, not at all. And such the notion that history itself is moving just like a pattern, whether be it's like waves or linearly scaling up or exponentially, is just not true. Just like this "moore's law", even if a series of events looks like it had a rhyme and pattern to it, there is no guarantee that very rhyme and pattern can continue for eternity.
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who succeed in learning from history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
But does that mean that we cannot in any way use history to infer knowledge that might be useful in solving a current problem??
History is an infinite story with 108 billion authors.
Well put
This is a very simplistic take. There are patterns in history. For instance, some people raise against their governments and suceesfully fight for independence , as it happened in the XIX century. Now, the job of historians and scholars would be to identify which features and circutances lead to such events. Analyzing those features can then give insight into the future.
So its not just like "people fight for progress", but more like "when people have endured massive poverty for XXX years, while inquality is YYY, and a catalist event happens such as a charismatic figure being murdered, theres a 70% chance an armed insurrection will start".
The problem with these kinds of theorems is that they fail when you account for the entire historical record. You may be able to find patterns at a particular moment in history, but if you factor in all human events around the world, the predictive power of History as Science becomes too weak to be considered scientific.
Human behavior cannot be quantified like that.
History doesn't repeat but they rhyme, just like poetry.
Star wars was good
How so?
History may not repeat itself, but it rhymes
-Mark Twain.
So history is basically a REALLY LONG AND DETAILED Yelp review
Lately I’ve been viewing history as a Mad-Lib that keeps having the nouns erased and filled in again.
It’s Qing Dynasty
"we are killing each other now with guns rather than stones"
"therefore history doesnt repeat"
close to a century ago we were killing each other with guns by the millions, but somehow that didnt happen at that scale before and now we have weapons that works on the force of atoms nucleus, and yet we are not using them despite we did some years back... and there are more people now that back then.
doesnt it repeat?
It just rhymes
A Buffett quote on history seems apt:
"If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians."
I mean, Jeff Bezos did start off as a kind of librarian, selling e-books.
7:08: "Voltaire *saw* the French revolution as the result of a progression of society, almost naturally, but it *was* his writings that *had* contributed to that revolution happening in the first place."
WTF? He lit. died in 1778.
You still see that ridiculous remark "history is written by the victors" in a time where there are hundreds of books being published every year by Germans, Japanese and Native Americans, among others.
I remember a quote by the great American writer William Faulkner: The past is never dead, it's not even past.
This quote has always stayed in my mind since I first heard it and I think it's so true...to paraphrase a quote from Robert Heinlein (the great 1960s sci-fi writer) a generation which ignores their own history truly has neither a past nor future. History is not something that repeats itself but in my opinion is the greatest teacher humanity can ever and will ever have because you can learn both the great achievements and the humongous blunders of it.
Historical progress, no. Technological progress, yes.
You have to have a goal in place to develop any idea of historical or social progress. That goal gives you a measuring stick, but the measuring stick varies from ideology to ideology and person to person. Technological progress has been more or less self-evident, and there are ways to objectively measure it, especially now, in the era of information technology - the processing of bits per second is a good example. It's by no means a certainty (our very technology might be what ends up wiping us out), but it has been pretty much continuous and relentless since the discovery of how to build fires. The rate of development in this area varies, but the fact of it does not. Given the brainpower of our species, it depends only on our desire for a means, irrespective of our ends.
@@batemanboi9672 "Technology =/= Society" I know. This distinction is the premise of my post. As Mark Twain is reputed to have said, "history doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes." Human nature does keep throwing up certain themes. Kraut knows this, too, I think, since he uses examples from history (rise of fascism, etc) to warn about things happening today.
I'm glad your back man just re subbed cos Sargon mentioned you had a new channel
Damn the last 5 minutes were so damn great. You are such a great speaker. Editing is flawless
I completely disagree on your reading of Hegel on the grounds that:
1. Hegel's approval of a monarchical state comes from his idea of particularity emerging from universality. But he wants monarchy because he does not want strong government. He wants to deemphasize power. He develops an idealist conception of sovereignty that allows for a monarch less powerful than a president-one whose task is to expresses the unity of the state and realize the rationality inherent in it. A monarch needs to be a conduit through which reason is expressed and actualized, not a power that might obstruct this process.
2. Hegel did not see an "end to history". This reading is commonly attributed to Robert Brandom, who himself belongs to analytic philosophy and is despised by the students of German Idealism and continental philosophy. This is the most significant difference between the Marxist and Hegelian schools of thought. According to Hegel, the Spirit (the development of human society) has ALREADY actualised itself, not in the sense that we live in a perfect society, but in the sense that we are aware of its existence. Hegel's idea that philosophy paints "grey on grey" is an epistemic example of this. Philosophy should not have a moral core, its duty must be assessment of ideology and how it functions; not how it should function.
I think the only semi-objective standards for progress are thus:
1. Whether more of the people in any given society are happy, healthy, and having their basic needs met.
2. Scientific progress and a better understanding of the the physical world.
That's really it. Everything else is subjective.
I like most of this video of yours better than some of the more questionable so-called "owning" of the alt-right videos. This video is much more mature and has a real nuanced understanding of morally gray areas. Where you fuck up is towards the end. White nationalism isn't about being "the chosen people" or anything like that ---- I think you know well who's more inclined to thinking in that way. White nationalism is just about being able to be ourselves unmolested by the imposition of people who are fundamentally different and who seek to dominate us.
To achive point 1 You could just kill those who are unhappy, what is a basic need? Notion that everything is subjective is just harmful and wrong.
When you do the graphs of either constant improvement or the cyclical thing, combine the two and you get something close to reality.
Y = xsin^2x+x
I can’t say I quite agree with you on this. On the dangers of interpreting history as an inevitable progression to an end goal, or the justification of one’s politics and ideology, I agree. History does not trend to a goal, and it is dangerous to believe it does, moreso to claim one’s actions further that goal.
But to say that we can’t learn anything from history-that it can’t guide us-is wrong. History is a sequence of events leading to the modern day, and as such, everything in the modern day is tied to history in some way. The past built the present, which builds the future. It falls to us to critically analyze history and avoid making the same mistakes our predecessors did.
I personally hate this line of thought, I don't think you can use history to guide our actions today. I don't see how you can find any mistakes to repeat, when the context is always so different. How do you properly account for the differences in context when you're trying to avoid these mistakes? The answer is you can't. History doesn't need to offer guidelines or cautionary tales to be a worthwhile pursuit. Simply knowing how and why we're here is important enough on its own.
@Credible Salamander "How do you properly account for the differences in context when you're trying to avoid these mistakes?"
By studying them. Even when comparisons between different contexts are not exactly one-to-one, parallels can still be found.
"History does not need to offer guidelines or cautionary tales to be a worthwhile pursuit. Simply knowing how and why we're here is important enough on it's own."
While I do agree that history need not offer the aforementioned to be a worthwhile pursuit, I disagree that simply knowing the how's and why's of the past is enough, because it is through the critical analysis of our past that we can build a better future.
@@fuzzydagger1873 @FuzzyDagger I think we agree broadly, and I might have been unclear in my wording. We can use history to analyze our problems and understand where they stem from to implement better solutions to the problems we have. This is pertinent to a lot of social problems and if you consider any past event history, it's the whole basis of empirical evidence and science.
I just have a problem with the constant rhetoric about repeating the mistakes of the past:
It implies that History must have a moral lesson or practical application. History can just be entertaining, frivolous, pointless and interesting for its own sake and that's okay. Much like Art can be made for Art's sake, History can be studied for History's sake.
It also carries a connotation of people in the past just not being smart enough to predict what would happen, when that's impossible to do. I understand this is purely semantic, but language plays a huge role in how we come to categorize and understand subjects, especially for people that aren't well versed in them.
@@crediblesalamander8056 That’s true. History has no inherent moral lesson, and people in the past were not all stupid. But I meant broad lessons that can be learned like, “If war technology outpaces the strategies and tactics used by generals, the result is battles fought with advanced weapons in antiquated ways, usually to the detriment of human life.” Like World War One. Things like that.
But you’re correct that history doesn’t have inherent moral lessons.
@@thegreatkingofevilganondor1500 I can understand the appeal, but I'm hesitant about the usefulness of lessons like those. The conditions of WWI are unlike anything else in human history, so it's hard to find parallels for it. How are you supposed to know that your strategies and tactics are outdated without testing them? It's incredibly difficult to predict the impact of any military technology before application in an actual war. For example, some of the most respected strategists thought the impact of aerial warfare would be similar to Nukes today, with the threat of strategic bombing being enough deterrence to prevent war, but we know that's obviously untrue. You can poke holes in any broad historical statement like that, which is why I'm more interested in the specifics.
''Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.'' Kind of reminds me of your RUclips channel.
As a lover of history, i loved this Video. Romanian historian Lucian Boia says there is "history and History". The capital "History" are the real past exactly how it happened, now inevitably inaccessible to us in its entirety. And "history" is our knowledge of the past and our biased interpretation of it
Love how Kraut just casually roasts John Green, the literal founder of all EduTube (Educational RUclips). (At 13:00)
There are problems with Karl Poppers work though , including his critique of marx, including for example the fact that Marx himself was critical of historicism (especially with regards to hegel) and the political theory he presented us prescribes very few primarily economic conditions that Would define as he thought would occur, to be communism.
"The past does not exist in the present, therefore history is not the events of the past, rather, history is what happens in the mind of the historian when he [or she] holds an artifact that exists in the present" - George Mason, historian extraordinaire.
Seriously Kraut, I love the the charisma in your voice. You make history sound much greater than it already is.
My thoughts on history, A record of past events to be remembered for the purpose of learning from the bad times and improving upon what was good. I know this sounds like an obvious perspective but one that I believe to be true and besides, you did ask for this.
I would ask you one question : What's good and what's bad?
It's an individual point of view wich evolved always with time.
Now will think that inclusion in society is more "good" than integration, maybe in 3y would think in a reverse way, using historical material as ciment of your point of view.
History isn't a tool to know what's good or bad in the past, using morality (Sense of good and bad, as something empirical), you're putting yourself as an individual judge of past deeds.
Like said in the video, what's we think good can be seen in 50y or 2 centuries as bad in majority.
Maybe Democracies would see as tyrannical, while a new system wich gives better representation and guarrantees of liberties is now the norm.
History is a strict teacher of humanity. If we as humanity don't learn the lesson, than we shall make the same mistakes again. Hence we see some history to repeat itself, because we didn't learn the lesson.
I agree with the video for the most part but I would disagree that Barbarian has no negative connotation. There was a word with a neutral-positive connotation: Xenos; but Barbarian literally came from an onomatopoeic expression mocking their language. I also disagree that Russia was successfully invaded by the Poles or the Germans. The Poles only managed to get Livonia and the Germans just signed a treaty. The only time Russia was successfully invaded was by the Mongols, and to be fair you can't really call it Russia because it was more just separate city states.
13:13
i swear the man said "safavids" like 5 times
I like both perspectives, and think both have value. I was first exposed to the concept of 'historicism' and its counterpoints in Nietzsche's 'Use and Abuse of History.' I then further saw the arguments for it when reading the book 'Hard Times Create Strong Men.' I may not be the most well read, but I think there's a valid argument to both. There is, when we simplify history, general trends that can be seen. Whether we use Marxist or Hegelian dialectics or more simple & poetic predictors, like that argued in the latter book mentioned prior, we can see general trends. However, these trends are not caused by some divine force or inevitability of humanity, but simply a continuance of ignorance, whether intentional or not. Ultimately, we may observe these patterns in the past, but it is up to us and the grace of god to set these patterns straight, and not allow humanity to fall once again into the pitfalls of destruction.
The question is....who didn't rule over Afghanistan?
*cries in norwegian*
@@ScreentimeNOR Give it time...
@@ScreentimeNOR *laughs in norwegian ISAF forces in northern Afghanistan in 2008*
history does not show the way, but it shows what not to do. if you don't learn from the mistakes of history, you are doom to repeat it.
Im definetly going to watch this again. . . . . . . not an attempt at a joke, i need to watch this again because i got lost in thought . . . .
History doesn't repeat. But history is, in a nutshell, just the cumulative gathering of all human behavior. And human behavior, by and large, literally never changes. It doesn't because it can't change. It's all behavioural biology and it's adaptation into social collectives.
I'm confused how can something adapt but not change
But we did change like smart phone and what not
@@token6236 a simple example of that is a neural network: a neural network learns, by performing similar tasks million times. They learn to perform better, but… It doesn’t change. It is still the same architecture, same code that is written in her barebones. Fundamentally, before learning and after, it is still the same piece of software.
Still, humans are more complex than neural networks, so it’s not that I’m trying to say we’re no different to them. But it is a good example of something that adapts, LEARNS, but doesn’t change. Has different data after it learns, yes. But same code, same architecture.
@@jerrygreenest the physical infrastructure of human neural networks across generations will inevitably change though, we are operating on stone age hardware but after enough time brains will catch up to the features of 'modern society' that become more or less stabilized. So yes, we might generalize human behavior as containing certain trends and see it pervade history; but we merely haven't been around long enough to see how our 'nature' itself changes
History does repeat.
"You have reckoned that history ought to judge the past and to instruct the contemporary world as to the future.
The present attempt does not yield to that high office. It will merely tell how it really was."
-Leopold Von Ranke
I view history as an upward cruve with spikes, and probably a cliff at the end.