/his/, when did we start homogenizing human knowledge to a singular

>>2906939
We didn't, we haven't.

By geographical position I obviously mean national identity

>>2906944
What are encyclopedias then?

>>2906971
All encyclopedias adhere to respective linguistic/racial/cultural geographical bias.

In the future this might change when people are more connected and the values are more universal. But for now, every encyclopedia out there in the world suffer from these biases.

>>2906978
How so?
It seems fairly apparent that the same values in a general sense, being as such major political historical events, religous and spiritual beliefs, scientific and philosophical knowledge , and various forms of art, are being appreciated by ranging groups of cultures and peoples , and hence the plausible bias seems to me to only be able to arise from a certain historical interpetation, which now makes me understand that my question is actually more akin to, are we currently interpreting history in an unbiased way? And if so, when did we start?

>>2907053
Political views of a given person influence how they see the world. If they believe in liberal values, their view of the world will have liberal tint.

Cultural view of a given person influence how they see the world. If they believe in American values, their view of the world will have American tint.

Linguistic capability of a given person influence how they see the world. If they can only understand English, their understanding will be limited to English context.

etc

You combine these three innate and simple bias and you get an encyclopedia that's biased. Ofcourse someone from within the same linguistic/cultural/political view probably wont be able the bias as they think of those as facts.

>>2907077
But you speak as if there is no objectivity to human knowledge, knowledge can be defined as such because of its inherently objective quality, the knowledge we now gather from the histories of men is not interpeted by a single person nor 10, it's knowledge from the perspective of a united conciousness unidentified with a given nationality race etc as factors other than the amends it must make for being accessible to the limited intellect of an individual, what you call bias seems to me to be the naligable compromises of adhering to the natural state of the objective universe.

>>2907133
Possibility of objective knowledge and certain person in certain condition being objective are two different argument. As too is the objective knowledge and homogenized human knowledge.

>>2907174
But what is YOUR argument?
That the history of history is in itself biased, because human knowledge is not objective?
That empirical objectivity cannot be directed towards knowledge retantion mediums?
That we are not currently looking at the knowledge we have as unbiased? Even when applied to scientific knowledge?

I seem to be missing your point, if it exist at all.

>>2907213
I already stated in the first post. Not at this moment in time. Our current world is too imperfect to create a perfect historical narrative. Our cultural/linguistic/political/etc biases prevent such. When the world is more connected in our shared values, will we truly see the start of a unified historical narrative.

>>2907223
Ok I understand what you are saying even though I think the "bias" is nalligable at best, I am simply interested in the history of the globalist identity history itself is taking as a medium which seeks to represent the available knowledge from all human societies equally, and the intellectual tendency to learn from the homogenous knowledge of humanity as potentially equally viable and useful, because of its innate collective conciousness implications, and my curiosity towards the development of global conciousness as a potential future standard in human civillization.

man this painting is dope as fuck