Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

does history repeat itself?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • does history repeat itself?

    does history repeat itself? - any instances?

  • #2
    I think it does.

    Comment


    • #3
      After reading a few historical events and compare it to nowadays, I think yes it does.
      The pattern repeated with different people and places.

      Comment


      • #4
        It does if people in the present do not learn the mistakes of the people of the past.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh, I've recently had to write an essay about it and if you're interested in it you can also see this page for more information. It is said that the history may be either a line, a circle or a helix. It's quite easy to visualise it and understand it: if it is a line, it never repeats itself and each time we have a new set of events, personalities and so on. This way the history has a goal and it will be finished some day. The perfect example for a belief like this is Christian teology where the world has a beginning and eventually will have an end. If it is a circle, it repeats all the time, the reasons and the consequences are all the same. But as a helix history is very hard to explain and understand. It moves like an evolution from the most simple forms of events to the more complex.

          Comment


          • #6
            No in my opinion history is written by certain kind of people who are an avid readers of history so they dont make foolish mistakes and you can better get an answer to this if you ask a historian these are just common people vwestern or not doesnt mean they are the pinacle of knowledge

            Comment


            • #7
              Yup.............but weirdly enough...........................................m ostly in economics/finance and different parts of the world,lol.

              Mzzls

              Comment


              • #8
                A good example can be rise and fall of ancient civilizations. If the current establishment is not able to learn, changing the course, it can be repeated then. Every civilization that makes wars and goes against nature is doomed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Josef70 View Post
                  Every civilization that makes wars and goes against nature is doomed.
                  The fall of Rome isn't really due to that, the citizen were being kinda 'lazy' and prefered to get a cool life in a city instead of working hard, didn't want to fight for their country, let some barbarian mercenaries to defend Rome, a bad administration, a bad military organization, important climate changes, corruption, down of demography and production, fall of economy and a lot of debts, more expenses and less benefits....
                  Not to forget the mass immigration and this moment, mass immigration that Rome couln't control at all, and were mercenaries was the police to control the troubles due to this immigration and who finally realized how strong they were and take the political power.

                  WHat is interesting to see is how similar is our current world.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    All empires fall to decay and ruin because the citizens become lax and arrogant at some point. Thats human nature, it cannot be rectified and a natural mechanism to keep Empires in check.
                    Even bad times teach humanity nothing. Its always an alternating cycle of Good and bad.
                    Lookin' for Booty on the Seven seas.

                    ===========================
                    I like to write about Food http://www.grubzon.com/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      i think it does, if so keep it peaceful

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 1917118 View Post
                        does history repeat itself? - any instances?
                        Why do you think so? Give an example!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yes, it does.
                          If you look back the history, you will see we still made the mistakes as our ancestor. maybe in different or the new ways. Because we are humans, not something we imagine.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A couple of the answers started in on cycles of empires declining and falling, and I've read some interesting ideas about that. They started with a philosophy of history, an analysis of such cycles, reviewed by 12th century Islamic philosophers (Ibn Kaldun, I think it might have been, but I'll skip looking that up). There was a similar school of thought in the early 20th century in the US, which I'm also not going to look up.

                            Both sets of ideas were later rejected in the field of philosophy for reasons that get complicated. One reason: it just didn't seem like philosophy. Another: they were looking for certain patterns, trying to apply a life-cycle model to civilizations and empires, and in doing so they started with the conclusions, more or less, and worked backwards to what they wanted to find. With that type of methodology problem they then also adjusted definitions and "data" to fit the pattern they wanted or expected to see (eg. time-frames, definition of what a society is, how to deal with boundaries). Some of the generalities must have been valid but later they just didn't accept any of it.

                            The general pattern is this (that people later rejected): a young society is chaotic, built to some extent on the foundation of an earlier society, but based on relatively complete disruption of that set of practices, economic system, social structures, etc. Early challenges include building up those types of structures, putting order to disorder. At the center of maturity functional structures (social, economic, and physical) support a healthy society. Later on the weight (overall burden) of accumulated social complexity starts to add up; social practices and systems that benefit everyone take up resources, and that resources demand tends to keep increasing and never decrease. Infrastructure gets old, but social systems also get old, and complexity that doesn't work well accumulates. Economically there is a long term trend for wealth to accumulate with a very limited number of people, and eventually that becomes problematic.

                            People want to mix external destruction of the natural environment with such models. The idea here is that the Maya or Khmer (Central American or Cambodian) peoples used up local resources, overtaxing water supply or farmlands, or destroying natural forest zones, and eventually that caused a downfall. It seems likely that could be a secondary factor but that instead there were natural variations in climate patterns and when a dip in the support potential occurred along with other social or economic problems both together pushed the society over a tipping point.

                            It sounds like it works, doesn't it? The prior answers condensed all that sort of modeling down to "people got lazy," and that does seem too simple. It seems more likely that complicated patterns played out in similar ways. I think a lot of the reason why none of this really stuck is that philosophy really isn't the right place for such sets of ideas, and I'm not sure what field of study is right for it. Social structures and practices, economics, and natural environment concerns are all different things. These types of models more or less ignore that empires, societies, nations, etc. are competing with other versions of these things, so it's not just about issues of internal demands and overall societal health, it's about all of these working out better than the next version over.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X