[_a_a_a_]

> A people cannot understand themselves without understanding their past

This kind of stuff gets rolled out regularly by arty and literary types but never with any explanation as to why it might be true, and I don't think it is. Care to indulge me?

[jpt4]

If a person could unequivocally understand themselves without understanding their past, then the trivial understanding of mere knowledge of the past should have no impact on their current self-understanding capabilities. Thus, a person with ongoing amnesia, unable to form memories which extend beyond a day's context window, would have no disadvantage in terms of self-understanding.

[Bluestein]

Further, history isn't just a series of events that happened long ago. It’s the story of how we - communities, nations, and civilizations have evolved over time. The experiences of previous generations shape the social, cultural, political, and economic structures that define a society today. Understanding this history allows a community to grasp why they are the way they are. For instance, the American Civil Rights Movement helps explain contemporary discussions on race in the United States. Without historical context, many aspects of the current social fabric would seem inexplicable or disconnected.-

Collective memory, as Halbwachs would have it, is like the shared pool of information and experiences held by a group of people. This collective memory is essential for maintaining cultural continuity across generations. When a community loses touch with its history, it risks losing the cohesion that binds its members together, which can lead to a sort of cultural amnesia. This concept isn’t just for nations; it applies to any group with a shared identity, including religious communities, ethnic groups, and even professional organizations.-

For example, indigenous communities often emphasize the importance of oral histories and traditions because these narratives carry the accumulated wisdom and identity of their people. If these stories are lost, so too is a sense of who they are as a distinct group.-

An understanding of history also allows a community to make informed decisions about the future. When people understand the causes and consequences of past events, they are better equipped to navigate present challenges. Santayana's quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," might sound like a cliché, but it's rooted in the idea that historical awareness helps societies avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. The European Union, for instance, was built on the memory of two world wars, which profoundly influenced its emphasis on cooperation and integration to prevent similar outcomes. Notwithstanding this whole mess in Ukraine ...

[_a_a_a_]

You've just made a whole load of claims this without backing any of them up. But okay, let's take one which does make sense:

> When people understand the causes and consequences of past events, they are better equipped to navigate present challenges

To a small degree. Most of this boils down to the bleeding obvious, like "avoid war when you can because it's hideously expensive", treat people with decency etc. is there really much more to it than that?

And you talk about cultural continuity – some of these continuities are not good, q.v. the Taliban. Also cultures change very rapidly – the kind of homophobia that was acceptable or even encouraged when I was a kid is now seen very much as a serious transgression or crime (speaking as a straight bloke, I'm glad it; I'm very glad things have changed). We haven't achieved gender parity in pay, we getting there. You can't stick your hands all over a woman as you could in the 60s and expect to get away with it (ditto good).

Well I don't know. I can't say I'm convinced by what you've written but I appreciate the answer anyway. Thanks.

[Bluestein]

> some of these continuities are not good, q.v. the Taliban

Indeed. Good point. As you well point out, in this case the past determines an outcome for the worse ...

PS. That said - I found interesting how, in a recent "live from a Taliban courtroom" video, the Sharia judge made a point along the lines of "We are lucky these aren't medieval times anymore and we have Sharia law with us ..."

They considered themselves an advance upon a certain past. Progress.-

[082349872349872]

> "The present is the past rolled up for action, and the past is the present unrolled for understanding." — AD/WJD

[_a_a_a_]

Very cute but that's all. No reason for me to consider it true. This if we are making unbacked claims then let me riposte thus, "the past is another country, they do things differently there". Which if true would mean the past has little bearing on the present – if true.

[082349872349872]

I'm riffing on bluestein, not defending lo_zamoyski — as far as I'm concerned, the invention of the web has made it far easier to go through the pockets of older cultures and discover what sorts of things they have that are worth taking a five-finger discount on.

(then again, I also find it worth learning how things are done in other countries, so I believe both the Durants' statement and your proposed riposte may be true at the same time)

[as for the truth: from a DBMS' WAL (the past) one may always reconstruct its tables, but for queries it's more convenient to always have them materialised (the present); does that make sense?]

[Bluestein]

> Durants' statement and your proposed riposte may be true at the same time)

For whatever it might be worth, I'd also tend to agree - they are not incompatible notions ...

[Bluestein]

That is such a great quote.-

[_a_a_a_]

Makes sense. Understanding the past isn't necessary to understanding yourself is your argument, which seems largely reasonable.

[jpt4]

Can a person with amnesia understand themselves?

[_a_a_a_]

Do those without amnesia do so?