[This post is a work-in-progress, a draft. Please comment. On anything - even suggest a better title. If you don't understand something say so - I'm not the best communicator. Comments will be removed if they are no longer relevant due to changes made to the post]
History fulfills my thirst for knowledge, my curiosity. I’ve always just wanted to know why things are the way they are.
Now it was a throw-away remark so I’m not having a go at Alex for it, but I’ve heard this uttered before and it cannot be true!
Or rather I don’t see how it can be true.
Our life is relative. Our experiences are relative. We are shaped by our previous experiences, our upbringing, our surroundings. Thus our interpretations of events, of history, are shaped by our background (our worldview).
This is a problem in
- Theology. It’s a vital question because without an answer how can we determine what is (more) right (than other views)? The problem can be seen just by looking at the development of Christian theology over the past 2000 years (I know nothing about the time before). Views have changed as the world-view of the time changes. Does that make one more right than another?
- Life itself. Is there any such thing as a right or wrong decision any more? I’m not thinking of morality in this case (others can tackle that one) but of mundane, every day decisions. Should I drive to X, should I do better on this piece of work? [weak examples, will revamp - please suggest some]
- Analysis of history, events etc. I’m not going to talk about this, as it’s similar to the impacts on theology.
All this is fairly depressing. If we don’t know why things are the way they are, or what is true, how can we make sense of things? Does life have to be a confusion from which we hide, carving out our small world of sense, burying our heads every time something comes along (or being buffeted with the flow of others’ thoughts)?
Why is understanding how to handle this relativism important, for me and for others?
- It affects every aspect of looking at the past, and the present. For example: I am English, so my reading of colonialism will be very different to that of someone who lives/lived under colonial rule. My thoughts about colonial rule will also be less positive than they would have been 60 years ago. In 400 years time people will view it from their own perspective. Which will be different, and because they won’t be living now may be more ‘correct’.
- As a Christian, grown up in the Western Protestant tradition, I know what is taught as being correct. Yet basic investigation shows that very different views were frequently held before the 16th century (the reformation), and have changed throughout history, including this century. If the views I hold are right then I want to be able to explain, both to myself and others, why it is and why I hold these beliefs. If they are not, I want to understand why, and what is (or more likely to be) right.
- I am the kind of person who is bothered by such questions. I’ve thought about the nature of truth for about 4 years. I need to reach some kind of consensus so I know what I think, and I dare to handle texts, opinions and statements I make with some kind of certainty. I don’t like uncertainty but I have to think my way through to a position where I can handle it.[To be rewritten - what I mean to communicate has slipped my mind] It impacts on every day life. Can decisions still be made? Is there any such thing as a correct decision? Helga Drummond would say not (the ART of DECISION MAKING is a fascinating book - in the uni library)
I don’t like the notion that everything is experiential, that nothing is totally right. It may be that many things are right (”Who can know the mind of God” after all - perhaps we see different facets of the same truth). Some things must be wrong, purely because the interpretations are too separate - eg “Jesus was a good chap who unfortunately got killed in a local power struggle” vs “Jesus was the Son of God who followed his Father’s will to the cross as a sacrifice to atone for our sin”.
(I’m excluding anything that’s known to be wrong from the existing evidence and background, such as the Gospel of Judas being a Christian gospel hidden by a jealous church. There have to be facts around, otherwise we’d live in a world comprised solely of conspiracy theories.)
Brain dump to write up properly later:
The pragmatic approach is to say ‘we can never know everything, but we can use historical facts to define what we know, use reasoning, logic and intuition to reach our own conclusion, and then we can live with that as “our truth”. Others will disagree with some of it but as we have reached the decision ourselves that’s OK - it’s ours and it cannot be wrong.’
One issue relativism appears to impact heavily is whether all religions lead to God. Need to write this up…
3 comments ↓
Following our discussion at the pub on this subject, at which I said to you I am fully aware that History is competely subjective and that under the Post Modern school of historiography, anything I write will be influenced by my upbringing.
My comment on History had nothing to do with the relativity of life. You have taken it out of context. I was writing about why I enjoy being a budding historian.
I can see that you might relate my comment on using History to explain my surroundings as part of the debate on the relativity of life. I disagree that History is irrelevant because of this relativity.
You write :”All this is fairly depressing. If we don’t know why things are the way they are, or what is true, how can we make sense of things? ”
By using the work of other historians, I can try and make sense of my current world. A properly trained historian considers more than the content of the other historians work, they consider its providence, whether it be a marxist feminist historian from the 1970s or a post modern republican from the 1980s. Having this background knowledge allows the historian to attempt to be more objective in their work, recognising the range of viewpoints and hoping to portray as much of the truth as they can. Without allowing historians to write from their own background, you would get censored history, a right and a wrong history.
Unfortunately events and history cannot be classified as wrong or right in the way you would like. We can only decipher ‘Truth’ to an extent, using all the information available.
You write: “(I’m excluding anything that’s known to be wrong from the existing evidence and background, such as the Gospel of Judas being a Christian gospel hidden by a jealous church. There have to be facts around, otherwise we’d live in a world comprised solely of conspiracy theories.)”
This is exactly what historians do using sources and information and the work of other historians. We chastise Holocaust deniers for this very reason. Existing evidece, the work of other historians and accounts exist to show that it happenned. We, like scientists, use hypothesis to explain what facts we know until we are proved otherwise.
One could say that History is my answer to the relativity of life. You cannot know as a human the whole truth about anything, any event, any action or reason. Only God can do that, if you believe in one. The human mind is limited, and thus we do what we can.
Erm. I’m feeling quite overwhelmed about all the stuff written here and I think my two pence might have depreciated in value.
I had heard that we are now living in a post-postmodern world. What does this mean? Does it fit in to the discussion?
I cirtainly can’t accept that some people have “the truth”. I especially can’t accept that the insulated Americans (the American Evangelicals to use my own coind phrase [implemented to replace Conservitive Evangelical]) have it. Having seen the Borat film at the Union on Sunday, the “”christian”" mega church was far to fucked up to be even the remotest bit Christ-Like.
Of course how do we know what is Christ-like if we don’t have video evidence of Christ. And even if we did, video evidence can’t record the entirety of a person’s character.
To quote Ben following one of the SCM talks - having Gospels that are actually different and don’t agree is a good thing. If you get four painters to paint the same thing they will all come up with something different.
Not sure if any of that relates to your post Peter. I shall ponder further.
Nick
Nice blog article, I was feeling a bit uncomfortable earlier by allowing my mind to wander and realize how relative everything is. I think when one thinks this deep it is enlightening, but like you said depressing. Ignorance is bliss, right?
Leave a Comment