Over the course of my AP World History class, my teacher and I have discussed the idea that an event that occurs after another event can lead to making the previous event an actual event. In a diagram:
Past = p
Event after past = E
Creation of event = ^
Time = ----
Traditional thought: P ----> E
......................................^
In this case, the previous event leads up to the more recent event. The thought process is:
P ----> E
^
Time occurs normally, of course, but in this case, the more recent event is the reason why the past event is considered an event.
For example, many historians and historical texts state that the French Revolution occurred because of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment philosophes.
Enlightenment ----> French Revolution
............................^
However, couldn't it be said that the French Revolution is what made the Enlightenment important in the eyes of historians?
Enlightenment ----> French Revolution
^
The idea is that without the French Revolution, the Enlightenment would not have been "important" history today. The Enlightenment is credited with being the primary influence for revolt among the French 3rd estate. However, isn't it more realistic to suggest that the Taille (French common tax), which raised the prices of bread to extraordinary amounts, led the peasants to rebel not because of romantic ideas of freedom and equality, but because they were starving?
Using this idea, the only reason why we speak of the Enlightenment is because the 1st and 2nd estates of France refused to allow for lower taxes among the commoners.
The diagrams you used in your example are exactly the same, which proves the point I'm going to make. History doesn't change based on what's happening now. Our opinions on things that happened may have changed because of more recent things. But if something important happens, it already happened whether or not it takes us years to realize how important it was.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
The diagrams you used in your example are exactly the same, which proves the point I'm going to make. History doesn't change based on what's happening now. Our opinions on things that happened may have changed because of more recent things. But if something important happens, it already happened whether or not it takes us years to realize how important it was.
Well, I think you're right but the point the OP was trying to say is that "past" events that produced "important" events are sometimes more important than what we consider to be "the important" events.
But, as you say, what we consider "important" is based on actual moral scales which change with time. So if a past event is "important" now, it may stop being "important" on a future.
This is difficult. In a state of Ceteris Peribus, this would probably be true. But there are many many factors that go into any one single event and factors that go into those factors. The Enlightenment era had much farther reaching and longer lasting affects than the French Revolution and the French Revolution had many more causes than the Enlightement philosophies.
Echoing Dr. Jeebus, we can only know how an event has affect a certain time period in retrospect, which in my opinion is the true bane of historical study.
The thing is there are two definitions for history here.
1. History as in "that which happened in the past"
2. History as in the study of "that which happened in the past"
2 is different from 1, as you can tell.
What I think you're doing is recognizing that history can mean both things, and saying, "Well these oppose each other". No they don't. Events lead to other events is fact, it's causality pure and simple. However, the idea we believe certain events as significant based on the standpoint of knowing later events which we also believe are significant goes into our perception of history and how we view it.
Past = p
Event after past = E
Creation of event = ^
Time = ----
Traditional thought: P ----> E
......................................^
In this case, the previous event leads up to the more recent event. The thought process is:
P ----> E
^
Time occurs normally, of course, but in this case, the more recent event is the reason why the past event is considered an event.
For example, many historians and historical texts state that the French Revolution occurred because of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment philosophes.
Enlightenment ----> French Revolution
............................^
However, couldn't it be said that the French Revolution is what made the Enlightenment important in the eyes of historians?
Enlightenment ----> French Revolution
^
The idea is that without the French Revolution, the Enlightenment would not have been "important" history today. The Enlightenment is credited with being the primary influence for revolt among the French 3rd estate. However, isn't it more realistic to suggest that the Taille (French common tax), which raised the prices of bread to extraordinary amounts, led the peasants to rebel not because of romantic ideas of freedom and equality, but because they were starving?
Using this idea, the only reason why we speak of the Enlightenment is because the 1st and 2nd estates of France refused to allow for lower taxes among the commoners.
Expansion, comments, criticism, questions?
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
Well, I think you're right but the point the OP was trying to say is that "past" events that produced "important" events are sometimes more important than what we consider to be "the important" events.
But, as you say, what we consider "important" is based on actual moral scales which change with time. So if a past event is "important" now, it may stop being "important" on a future.
[Clan Flamingo]
The clan for custom card creators!
Echoing Dr. Jeebus, we can only know how an event has affect a certain time period in retrospect, which in my opinion is the true bane of historical study.
1. History as in "that which happened in the past"
2. History as in the study of "that which happened in the past"
2 is different from 1, as you can tell.
What I think you're doing is recognizing that history can mean both things, and saying, "Well these oppose each other". No they don't. Events lead to other events is fact, it's causality pure and simple. However, the idea we believe certain events as significant based on the standpoint of knowing later events which we also believe are significant goes into our perception of history and how we view it.