What is History?

>>2571017
to add:
what is the difference between history and the past?

>>2571045
It is our knowledge or belief of knowledgde of the past

>>2571017
Don't play dumb, the rule is not epistemiological of origin, but practical.

twisting facts and manipulation is must easier in the present
and since history is based on sources, an era where the real sources are often classified thus not accessable is better to be left alone and wait till you can access sources and propaganda to be unveiled

baby don't revise me

>>2571077
to add:
what is the difference between history and the past?
The past is a reality that for sure is there, but it is unreachable as it has past. History is the humans look at there past and trying to make sense of it (If you ever can, there is no absolute truth in history). (You can fill libraries with this topic) It is in discussion with eachother. Ranke started to created a methode for this, and the methode is important ( it is based on being criticial of sources, of yourself, others, formulating an opinion, daring to change your opinion, reading etc etc)

So that is the difference in my POV. One is unreachable as a whole, the other is making sense of the faint voices and traces that humans have left in that unreachable reality (for the past is as real as the present)

>>
Anonymous 03/27/17(Mon)13:51:44 No.2571051▶

>>2571045
It is our knowledge or belief of knowledgde of the past

So in a way, you are absolute correct. But might I add that the knowledge or belief of knowledge is always formed in discussion about the past.

>>
Anonymous 03/27/17(Mon)13:53:16 No.2571057▶

>>2571017 (OP)
Don't play dumb, the rule is not epistemiological of origin, but practical.

Good point as well! Now, the practical side is often missing in history. Because of almost a neverending stream of difficulties. Some big ones are national orientated historywritting, the way the narrative of history is formed (past-present, I am more fan of present-past, not a discussion for now :). ) But I do believe the practical side can be set or 'created'. But we have to incorporate the present in the narrative in order to make an effort, I think.
>>

>>2571164
Anonymous 03/27/17(Mon)14:01:24 No.2571077▶

twisting facts and manipulation is must easier in the present
and since history is based on sources, an era where the real sources are often classified thus not accessable is better to be left alone and wait till you can access sources and propaganda to be unveiled.

Propaganda is off all ages, therefor twisting facts is as well. I do agree that nowadays, with fake news, alternative facts (I, as a historian in the making, hate that has been introduced as a concept) it has become much easier.

But I see potential. Sites like this are a source in itself. As sources in history writing almost all are products of the mind, this 'archive of minds' (at least in potential, an archive is organized, this is not) that live in the present, should be a goldmine for historians (who have, at least in my experience, true intentions). When I posted the original question, I had no idea what the effect would be. But I am glad, it at least had an effect. So thank you.

>>2571057
Mmmh I was kinda dumb, I didn't realise in time you were talking to me.
I get that the rule is practical. Without a doubt my mind has some tendencies of wishfull thinking. It was wishfull thinking maybe, that this platform could provide ongoing discussion. But I stand corrected. Discussion here drowns so fast in the bullshit of others.(Now the fact that you even know what epistemiological means, excludes you from being 'bullshit')
I wasn't playing dumb, I am not even playing right now. I was naive for sure, like we all can be. Still hopefull though.

This is my first day on this site, I don't know, maybe also my last.