tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post6106062834098963328..comments2024-03-27T03:19:11.216-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: A Little History Of The WorldAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-72379855952809444502012-03-12T10:54:13.939-04:002012-03-12T10:54:13.939-04:00It is strange to read older histories that focus a...It is strange to read older histories that focus almost exclusively on the palace intrigues, when I want to know how the population is dealing with its natural resources and what kind of social systems they have for dealings with markets and child-rearing and disputes.<br /><br />It was a big shock to me as a college freshman to read history books that looked to primary information (like contemporary lists of inherited goods) about everyday life and attempted to draw tentative conclusions from them, rather than describing all history as a kind of sweeping narrative embedded with assumptions about what was inevitable and why it happened.<br /><br />I'm listening to a pretty good "Teaching Company" lecture on the history of science, a subject I find much easier to grasp than ordinary history. I love hearing how natural scientists grappled with early discoveries, how they got derailed by confusing data, how they resolved their disagreements, how they were hit with flashes of creative intuition when everyone was stuck with an old model that didn't really fit the data. It's so easy to say, "Oh, electricity and magnetism work like this," and so unimaginably difficult to figure them out for the first time, especially depending on whether the society around you is helping or hindering you.<br /><br />The early natural scientists spent what now seem like astonishing amounts of time accepting or rejecting theories on the basis of their personal notions of what God must be like. Was He the sort that would guide every particle's motion by His own hand, or did He set the universal laws in motion and then stand back? Even today, people think science will answer that question. Every time we learn to understand some new mechanism, most people assume it's evidence for or against the existence of God.<br /><br />Well, I've drifted off-topic. My original point was that I like history that makes a serious attempt to deal with a broad range of causes, taking into account that the people at the time didn't know what was coming next. Also, just as I prefer a "modern" scientific technique of taking data as you find it rather than imposing your personal notion of God's probable design on it, I prefer history that develops a narrative out of a broad range of facts rather than imposing the narrative onto those limited facts that support it, and neglecting the rest.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-40014868686032461062012-03-11T19:11:35.397-04:002012-03-11T19:11:35.397-04:00James: I have bought several volumes of the Duran...James: I have bought several volumes of the Durant series at a used bookstore for $1. The Durants are very good writers. The books are a smooth, effortless read- which takes a lot of effort in the writing.Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-65830763596467875612012-03-11T16:43:42.512-04:002012-03-11T16:43:42.512-04:00I love the Will and Ariel Durant history of the We...I love the Will and Ariel Durant history of the West. They cover the kings and religions, and the art <em>and</em> how people lived. And it is in umpteen volumes.jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01792036361407527304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-40596551978017065762012-03-11T16:21:30.015-04:002012-03-11T16:21:30.015-04:00But he underemphasises such things. I don't li...<i>But he underemphasises such things. I don't like my history that way anymore. Relatedly, his perspective is very much that of standard narrative bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment, which emphasises how wonderful rationalism is contrasted to faith or trade or technology,</i><br /><br />I once asked a fellow commenter what he thought distinguished Europe from Islam and China – which at the time were more advanced in scientific knowledge than Europe- to cause the Scientific Revolution from 1500 onwards to occur in Europe and not elsewhere.<br /><br />The answer came back “Enlightenment…secular.. rational….,” which totally ignored my starting point of 1500 or so. The Scientific Revolution in Europe was going great guns centuries before the Enlightenment. Copernicus was a cleric and the nephew of a bishop. Etc. <br /><br />Anyone who answers such a question with "Enlightenment..." is ignoring centuries of science, philosophy, and religion- and how differing worldviews among Europe, Islam and China resulted in different results.Gringonoreply@blogger.com