Is History the only true Judge?

Question

When is *meaning* created?

Is there meaning in an act the moment it is performed? Or is the meaning determined later?

Whiner48! :-)

I’m happy to clarify. A few days ago, a fellow Y!A-er postulated that if Humanity was obliterated, and our history destroyed, all of our achievements would be meaningless. In other words, if there is no record of an event, it has no significance.

My argument is that an achievement has meaning in the moment it is accomplished (This seems to be the point on which we differ.), and historical interpretation is irrelevant to that meaning--as you rightly said, it primarily reflects a change in societal values. I was interested to see if anyone would make a good argument for the “history will judge” camp.

So in your terms, my question is as follows: “What is the relevance of TIME in the CREATION and/or the INTERPRETATION of MEANING?”

It looks to me as though you are suggesting that an act has no meaning until it can be judged objectively. You say it “really doesn't mean much to us apart from the fact that we know it’s an EVENT.” I disagree. Care to enumerate?

re: “you believe that the meaning of the event can exist independently of any ‘external’ interpretations.”

Precisely. Why can’t meaning be created by the one performing the act? The alternative is that any life that is not “historically significant” is “meaningless”. The life is not meaningless to the individual, only to society.

* * * *
re: confusion on subjective and the objective, external interpretation, history.

My questions show no distinction because I don’t believe there is a significant difference. Meaning is *always* subjective. As Willa’s answer eloquently stated, “One act can have as many different meanings as people who consider it, including the actor and those who later ponder the act.” It doesn’t matter if the event/act/achievement is interpreted by the one who performed it, the people who saw it, or a person in the future (historian). You have already stated that even historical interpretations are subjective.

An American travel book or history book, written by a non-American author will not correspond with the history taught in American schools. Different historian, different interpretation.

* * * *
re: Your statement "HISTORY WILL JUDGE"

When I say “history will judge” I am repeating a societal belief. I think this belief is wrong.

* * * *
re: “By HISTORY you must mean that its something that exists in the objective realm.”

Not in the least. Again, this is the societal position (and perhaps your position?). *I* believe, as stated in my prior post, that historical interpretation is irrelevant. In fact, I don’t see how any “objective realm” is feasible, given every human interprets an event in his or her own way.

* * * *
re: “I am saying that there would be no meaning until someone has taken a perspective to interpret the events of history. In other words to create a meaning which would otherwise not have existed without the interpretation…

we won't know what it means until we have read someone's interpretations of the event.

Okay, *this* is my actual point of interest. It seems to be taken for granted that perspective is necessary to interpret an event. Why is this so? It may be true that some acts have unforeseen consequences, but it would be impossible to determine a length a time to wait for these consequences to manifest. Wouldn’t any interpretation simply be subjected to later reinterpretation? So how can meaning ever be finally determined?

Taking your point into consideration, I now propose the following: Meaning is created the moment that an act/event/achievement occurs. In that moment, the meaning is created by all persons who are party or witness to the act/event. The meaning is then continuously reinterpreted by people with different perspectives (including historical perspectives). If all records/memory of the event were destroyed, the meaning no longer exists.

However, that does not mean that the events/acts are meaningless, because the meaning did, at one point, exist. I think my wording is unclear at this point. My analogy would be this: It is not correct to say that a human did not live, just because he is dead. In the same way, it is not correct to say that an event is meaningless, simply because the event is no longer recorded. Your comments? (Or anyone’s comments…) :-)

Answer 1

*****!!! I think my post was automatically erased because i have typed too much!! I didn't save a copy of my answers...*****!!! lol

Its not my fault!! You need to get my answer from the YA admin....lol...*****!!

Anyway what i did still has meaning even though my words were erased...or maybe not? since nobody could read it now. :-)

btw this is NOT a joke everything i have typed was really erased by the YA system.

Answer 2

I'd say there's meaning in the moment of performance, but interpretations, true and false, can come later.
I've always likes these lines:

"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow


Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom

Answer 3

History is a construct of human interpretation, and such intepretations are mitgated by human egoism and conditioned by the narrowness of the human intellect. One hope that there is a reality greater than history that orders judgement. Meaning inheres in existence by virtue of the intellibility of being, it therefore precedes our action, and contexualizes whatever action is performed.

Answer 4

One act can have as many different meanings as people who consider it, including the actor and those who later ponder the act.

Answer 5

Meaning is constructed in the mind and is often predetermined.

If you believe, for example, that silence means that a person is angry then any encounter you have with silence is likely to mean the same. That person may not be angry but meditating. That person may be shy.