Doesn't history itself disolve as any meaningul scientific dicipline? (This is being asked by a lover of history who respects a deep conversation between intellectual disicplines, so don't feel you have to be too defensive or overly aggressive, just identify the logical relationship, the quid pro quo.)
2006-09-23 04:43:08 · 9 answers · asked by Isis 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Well, when you consider that many people believe the entire universe is an "artificial construct", I don't think time's being so would invalidate anything.
As long as most of us agree on the "rules of the game", then it doesn't really matter that it's all a game.
2006-09-23 05:15:07 · answer #1 · answered by johnslat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I would believe that you would be right on that. But I'll go with this instead that time isn't an artifical construct. Only beause I've been up to long to get around it and I'll try to think of something better the next time that I'm online. Since I dont' think so there is are moives that seem to capture time that is lost that we losing that we are all losing and there's no getting it back. Maybe and I don't mean to be rude to any aspring movie actors or actress but that's why they go into that sort of work. I only come to this conclusion beacuase of what I watcing on Andy Warhol the other night and how he was recorder of everything that went on around him. I would like to talk about other things of recording but nothing has the same effect as film and photograhs. They are so dead they also want us to believe that these things stay the way they do they will reamain in this world forever that this celloide will never disapate like its some sort fountain of youth. So with that not necassaryly with history with real history of polticics but with reacent history of the last centruy this a probalem to your question or not really like I said I'm tired and I'm terribly sorry for that.
2006-09-23 04:58:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anthony M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure I understand the question completely but...
I believe history is part of the humanities not scientific disciplines, maybe the social sciences. But if you link the two by saying that history is a study of human behavior "thru time" and then define time in Einsteinian terms I guess that would legitimize the postulate. Since one is a theoretical multidimensional framework of concepts and the other a study of the evolution of the dynamic relationships between humans and societies both must be recognized a meaningful. The relationship depends on whether you are a scientist or a philosopher.
2006-09-23 05:42:00 · answer #3 · answered by Dan E 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the premise of your question is incorrect. Time is not completely artificial. Time is obviously real, but it does not apply to the spiritual nature, our real identity. Time does apply to everything material, the whole cosmic manifestation and everything composed of material elements, since we see that everything material has a beginning and an end. Time is simply the method used to measure the duration of the middle period between creation and dissolution.
Time doesn't apply to the spiritual nature because the spiritual nature is eternal. We are the spiritual energy that gives life to the body and we did not come into existence at some point and we do not ever die or dissolve. We always were and always will be. This is clearly stated in the Bhagavad-gita as follows: "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings. Nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." In the human form of life we have the opportunity to ask the important questions and understand and awaken to our eternal spiritual nature. This is self-realization. Check out the Bhagavad-gita on-line at the link below for more info on time and our spiritual nature.
2006-09-23 05:27:20 · answer #4 · answered by Jagatkarta 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The beauty of time is it possesses a subjective nature for humans/philosophy and a universal nature for humans/science. If time itself was moving toward a "universal humanism," history would hold all universal truths and we could go back in time to forsee the future. When we view time with philosophy we are viewing human intellect moving toward a definite direction which gives us an opportunity to negate time and invalidate history. Let's factor in genetic engineering. If we had the capability to design our embryos this would be done based upon time and history and the type of person that is acceptable. If this happens time will be irrelevant because our lives will be constructed. Our genes will direct our actions through the course of our lives without the need for creativity or inginuity and our mental perception of time. In Philosophy the intellect recreates itself through courage and love, so it does not completely rely on time. This could also be explained by using determinism and creationism. When I think about Hitler I am very greatful that we can invalidate time and history.
2006-09-23 06:04:37 · answer #5 · answered by JazzyJB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
true.... but which history would you invalidate then? if we could recreate history or invalidate one's history, then we go back in time, right? thus, the history you have known would be completely reconstructed to a new one if (and only if) you altered it in some manner... like contributing to the past.
supposing, you hate your father... you go back in time... make a way for him not to meet your mother, then by altering it, you will never be born and in that manner you invalidated your history...
2006-09-23 05:34:46 · answer #6 · answered by VeRDuGo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
White time is artificial and arbitrary, it's still consistent and constant, so it's still a good way to validate history.
2006-09-23 04:50:34 · answer #7 · answered by ratboy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you need more to do.
2006-09-23 04:50:33 · answer #8 · answered by magan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not really
2006-09-23 04:51:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋