Bacon wrote:
Defenestrator2.0 wrote:
They do not remember the events that happened before their time, which is, once again, arguably for the best. For with the absence of memory comes the absence of perspective.
Sorry if this paragraph comes out making no sense. I had another one of those moments where I spaced out, and simply wrote. Plus I'm a tad bit tired.
While I agree mostly, to progress you
have to study the past. You need to know what happened and what failed before you can even begin to try and change it.
You are definitely correct. It is unequivocally true that one must study the past in order to learn from it, all in in effort to glean knowledge and insight about the best course of action for you to take should you ever encounter a situation similar to one which has already come to pass. The underlying message was not properly dictated, and with that, the fault lies with me. My intention was to say that it is for best that they have no memory of past events in the sense that they do not remember the feelings and human attachments of the events. It is one thing to study an event, it is another to live it. Text is a mixed blessing. When you place memories on paper, it is converted from pictures and thoughts to text. It is through that conversion process that something is lost: emotion. It still rings true with novels. A novel will never move you as much as a movie, much like reading field reports will never be the same as being on the battlefield. This is because humans, by nature, are visual creatures. Whenever we are moved by a novel, whether it be to happiness or to sadness, it is we who are manipulating ourselves through our imaginations and through our empathy. The text merely serves as a vehicle for the fantasy in which we have placed ourselves. This is why the detached tone of text, and as an extension, history, is so pure, so invaluable. Because through the loss of emotion comes the loss of empathy. Human bias mars the impartiality of events, and purging our views from records that are intended to educate results in the teaching of the past, instead of telling. That is to say, detachment and impartiality helps us to understand the what, the where, the when, and the why of an event, not the how. It is the 'how' that is subjective. If we are told
how something happens, then we are being told of it from the viewpoint of the speaker. Sometimes that element can be useful in books, but when it comes to trying to teach a fair and impartial view of history, the 'how' has no place in the discussion, and the most tactful action is to never put it in at all. To be concise, freedom from the taint of human supposition is freedom of the mind.