Or am I way off, and its ultimate function is something totally different?
2006-10-12 12:11:52 · 6 answers · asked by big-brother 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Jane I
I dont understand your answer. Are you saying those in the school of thought that believe we gain knowledge to create ACTION have hidden lies?
And those who believe we gain Knowlege to create interpretations are bold becuase of hidden truth?
?????
2006-10-12 12:17:53 · update #1
Knowledge is the REFINEMENT of historical precedent.
What good is it to be aware of a thing but not benefit from that knowledge? Contemporaneous context is what one must strive to achieve while interpreting history.
2006-10-12 12:21:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess to me the ultimate function of knowledge is to use it as a base to build upon, certainly not to change history -although that is bound to happen inadvertently as time goes on BECAUSE of varying interpretations. (I hope that made sense)
2006-10-12 12:18:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Truth and fact are mutually inclusive, history is what it is. If asking a historian they will prefer to stay as faithful to the facts as possible. If asking a theocrat, they are more motivated to promulgate a message than they are concerned with it’s accuracy.
2006-10-12 12:21:23 · answer #3 · answered by namvet68 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends who you are asking, if you are asking those who have something to gain by lying, than it is to change,
if you are asking those who have something to gain by telling the truth, then it is left to interpretation.
2006-10-12 12:13:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps neither but rather to learn from it.
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
George Santayana
2006-10-12 14:05:10 · answer #5 · answered by 63vette 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wouldn't you need a time machine to change history?
2006-10-12 12:14:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋