What is the past?

File: 1481585417076.jpg (77KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 960x960px

Both of those points are nonsensical. Apply yourself.

>>8881227
Looked up this image and apparently its just a joke about being "swamped". This kid moved all this shit out here and got algae in his pants to make a bad pun. Serious autism. I feel bad for him.

almonds and sho on

>>8881251

How are they nonsensical?

>>8881227
It's not much. It's our memories of it, really. Or maybe our imagination.

>>8881371
Fine, let's go through the whole thing.

>It seems like that which we call the Past is only a construct.
Pseudo-"deep" nonsense that sounds like it came from a college freshman smoking weed for the first time.
>All written accounts from a certain time are treated as a kind of marketplace from which we only take what is congruent with our collective given impression of said time while ignoring the rest.
Here you ignore the process of millennia of looking back at the past to construct that "collective impression." History did not start in 1986 when somebody looked back and wondered what the hell the French Revolution was. It is a process that has been going on since Herodotus, evolving and refining itself into a clearer picture of humanity's past ever since.
What you're describing instead is how someone born today learns about history. Yes, they do have to work with the timeline that has been constructed by historians previously, but this is not something specific to history. Your life is not a blank slate where you start the humanities and sciences and civilization as a whole from scratch, dumbass.
>Either one of these seems less fanciful than, say, trebuchets being used in warfare or even existing at all.
I don't know where you pulled this from. If you have any understanding of physics a trebuchet is not particularly difficult to grasp. A person with the head of a fucking dog is.
Even ignoring your horseshit example the point doesn't stand. You're asserting that historically accepted facts seem too fanciful to you? As opposed to what? Are you going to replace them with something? Have you conducted some sort of independent research that will blow all accepted history out of the water, or are you saying history is dumb and shouldn't be studied? Your purpose is both vague and fundamentally flawed.

So yes, nonsense. Elaborate.

>>8881469

You "second" point isn't even an argument. I was referring to the collective impression-based construct as a constant process that began at the same time as recorded History, and that essentially defines it at the end of the day. If anything, your mention of "evolving and refining itself" describes this Subjective process of discarding troublesome and supposedly irrelevant accounts, and forming a Historic canon to your heart's content. I'm describing how everyone born at all times MADE History. And furthermore, I explicitly did NOT invoke any blank slate ideas. I said that we have plenty of primary sources speaking of events mainstream History chooses to ignore, possibly just as many or even more than those speaking of events it chooses to accept. I asked why then do we not consider all sources equal? What are the criteria for accepting some but discarding other?

The fact that you can't think is obvious, but this is such a terrible reply that I'm wondering if you can even read.

Also, the physics of a trebuchet are irrelevant to my question. Middle Age means of production, quality control, risk/reward ratio, cost of operation - these factors decide if a weapon is used in warfare or not. And these factors lead me to believe that the notion of trebuchets being used in warfare is very fanciful, and a lot less likely than many of the countless siege weapons depicted in manuscripts that have been written off as fiction; and...yes, even from a nuance-free Materialist standpoint, less fanciful than dog-headed people.

If my original post triggered this abomination of a reply, I dread to think about what comes next.

>>8881617
>I was referring to the collective impression-based construct as a constant process that began at the same time as recorded History, and that essentially defines it at the end of the day. If anything, your mention of "evolving and refining itself" describes this Subjective process of discarding troublesome and supposedly irrelevant accounts, and forming a Historic canon to your heart's content. I'm describing how everyone born at all times MADE History.
Yes, this is how history and all of human knowledge in general happens.
>I said that we have plenty of primary sources speaking of events mainstream History chooses to ignore, possibly just as many or even more than those speaking of events it chooses to accept. I asked why then do we not consider all sources equal? What are the criteria for accepting some but discarding other?
For literally thousands of reasons depending on what sources you're talking about? History is an active field of study and always has been, people have this exact debate every single day. Why would every historical source be equally valid? Having such an incredibly broad debate is impossible, not even an actual historian could make generalizations about why all sources are chosen over others.
You're saying that history is constructed from disparate conflicting sources that have to be weighed against one another, which is acceptable. Nobody would be able to really argue that. But you also seem to think that the established academic historians all pick the "wrong" sources, which smacks of paranoia and is impossible to validate unless you talk about specific cases. So far the only one you've mentioned is the trebuchet.
>The fact that you can't think is obvious, but this is such a terrible reply that I'm wondering if you can even read.
Cool.
>Also, the physics of a trebuchet are irrelevant to my question. Middle Age means of production, quality control, risk/reward ratio, cost of operation - these factors decide if a weapon is used in warfare or not. And these factors lead me to believe that the notion of trebuchets being used in warfare is very fanciful, and a lot less likely than many of the countless siege weapons depicted in manuscripts that have been written off as fiction;
Why do you latch onto this specifically? Point me in the direction of some reasons that trebuchets are a myth, some sources saying medieval Europe could not actually put them into use. I've never heard anybody claim something like that before and am genuinely curious why other siege engines are acceptable but trebuchets are just too outlandish to be reality.
>and...yes, even from a nuance-free Materialist standpoint, less fanciful than dog-headed people.
Less fanciful meaning trebuchets are more reasonable than dog people? Contradicting your op? I'm confused.
>If my original post triggered this abomination of a reply, I dread to think about what comes next.
Nice.