Theory of Knowledge

[Chava]

I take a class about that. TOK. Recently we had an interesting discussion, and a nice set of presentations about history, and historiography, and we were asked to do a serious of things. The first was to distinguish between the two, and after many excited voices and shared opinions, i would like to hear what you think the distinctions are?

[adilyoussef]

Sorry chava, but I did not get your point. What do you mean by theory of knowledge? Can you make it more clear if you please?

[Weeping Willow]

i think she ment the diffrence between History and historiography.. right?..

[RobinHood3000]

Theory of Knowledge. It's a class that essentially discusses the nature of knowledge in the context of the Ways of Knowledge (Emotion, Perception, Language, Reason) and the Areas of Knowledge (Mathematics, Natural Sciences, The Arts, History, Ethics, Human Sciences). As for the difference between History and Historiography, though (which is what I believe Chava was asking about), I can't really help you.

[Chava]

hmm
wow, many replies already, wonderful
Robinhood summed up TOK wonderfully, (how did you know?)
First, History is history, it is what was in the past, and cannot be changed. Historiography is the writting of history. that's the difference. So my question, oh.. i just answered it. in any case, what do you think the distinctions are, think about it, really think about it. What is historiography, and what does it suggest about what you know about history? can you really believe in your heritage?

[Nightshade]

Coool I wonder if I canm sign up for a class like that? Nothing I like better than airing my opions.
So for the 'graphy (if I try and write it all Ill just make a fool of myself :D so bare wth me) its what like, was Joan of Arc a wwitch? was Richard iii really as bad as all that or is it because the people who wrote it wanted people to think that (ie the people who beat them)? So is the history we study really a string of propaganda?
Like the Historia Augusta (is that spelt right??) I watched aprogram on it and it was amazing. Which reminds anyone know where I could get an english translation?
Is ity stuff like that you mean chava??

:D

[Chava]

exactly
that's what historiography is, the written version. Everything we learn about history is essentially historiography, because any document is pre-interpreted by the author, and he will always neglect some details, since you can't include everything, so you never get the full account.
It's so essential for a historian to be objektive, but at the same time, it's inevitable that the result will be bias, and based on certain documents selected by that individual.
Have you ever heard about David Irving? or the revisionists? Look him up, i assure you it will give you something to have opinions about!

[Nightshade]

nope... but if I look them up will you discuss them with me??
:D:D :brow:

[Chava]

oh you can count on it.... ( i have thousands of completely subjective opinions about this...)

[Nightshade]

YAY!!!! soo any suggestions on looking them up??
as in book to read ?:D

[Chava]

sigh.. not really
can't remember any books, but i'm sure you'll find an amasing number of articles about him.

[Nightshade]

Okay dokay give me amonth than I should be armed for a nice debate :D

[Nightshade]

Haha turns out I actuially already have opions on this., but Im thinking there too political to air sadly :(

[Chava]

sigh.. that is too bad...
well, i could ask you instead, what you think about the idea of revisionists, re-writing history in this way? what purpose does it have, etc?

[Nightshade]

I think its all a proppaganda war isnt it? I mean chances are both sides are in reality exaggerating and twisting a few choice facts arent they??
What purpose does it serev self justificaton, probably. But whether it should be illegal is another matter entirley.
I think that banning an idea or a wayu of thinking is just as bad as brainwashing if not actually brainwashing, people should be free to make up theire own mind about what happened.
Sort of lke an this is a very trivial exampple but Im sort of reading Thud! by terry oprachett at the moment:
"kroom Valley where dwarfs ambushed trolls/and trolls ambushed dwarfs"

[Chava]

That's interesting, you know, a lot of people in my class we're getting rather offended on behalf of all jew's, at the mere suggestion that it could all be fraud. That being said, i must declare that i find people like David Irving absolutely insane. He simply refuses to deal with facts that don't promote his point of view, his field of vision seems so blocked by his own paradigm, that even video evidence of thousands of dead bodies must be fraud, and can't help but feel that he seems so ignorant.
That's why i can't take him seriously as a historian, because all his "historical" writings are coloured by his "evidence".

[rachel]

Chava, a question,
I am not as learned as most of you so I think I see things a little differently , rather like the common man if you will.
If the one is mere history, events that just happened and cannot be altered and the second is a telling of history by persons who as human beings have feelings about history and biases and perhaps want the rest of the world to see things slightly or greatly different than what is truth:
my question is what is the difference, for in order to find out what just happened someone had to report it. Now I was an investigative reporter for years and although I tried to be completely neutral-'just the facts ma'am" I was appalled at how clever some of my fellows were, even in reporting thru pictures. They would only pan over here for instance instead of here and there and so the audience would get a completely warped picture of what was supposed to be 'just fact'.
I don't see how you can separate the two and even the teacher teaching you has an agenda, a dream per se in his or her heart to impart to you , something the teacher wants you to come away with. so when you do come away unless you spend oodles of time researching from a dozen different perspectives you will come away with that person having put something into your thinking. So my question again is -what is the difference?

[Nightshade]

Thats itRachel in a nutshell there isnt a differance really true history is a paradox. History i s mediated anything told is mediated and thu s inching away from the truth.
Now does this mean we should ignore it?
( Ive got my own opions but wouldnt mind hearing some more)

[Chava]

And there, rachel you quite seamlessly summed up the essence of TOK. The whole point is that we have to learn to appreciate bias and selection. We have to recognise that it is unmistakably there, and learn to work around it. Per say, even if we know that all our history could be coloured, or made out in a special light, it is effectively the only thing we have to look back upon, and so the understanding of it is so widely interpreted.
Effectively, this is the reason that there are so many conflicts. (this is one of the things that TOK tries to teach us) and understanding the nature of disagreements, (deviations in interpretations of religion is a prime example) is essential to understand how people think.

[rachel]

Thankyou for that guys because I was starting to feel like I am a very stupid person.