I have recently fallen in love with the author Dan Brown and his work. In one of his books, he points out that there is really no way to prove that what we are taught history is acctually what happened in the past. All books have a personal view, even the bible was edited to hold only content that the Church deemed worthy.
So if I may, I am going to pose another excruciatingly painful question. If everything that we think we know is a lie, how can one prove that history has acctually happened? Is it even possible? Can a singular person show the rest of the world the acctual record of events that is mostly unbiased? If so, how would one go about such a task? It would most certainly take a lifetime, and by then more will have changed that he (or she) can not put into writing, therefore starting the viscious cycle of lies in history again.
I will end with a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte: "What is history but a lie agreed upon?"
We must remember, though, that nothing in this world is ever 100% proven
That's a bit of a blanket statement isn't it? I mean if you're looking at it from a purely realistic POV, there are multiple things which can be proven without argument.
i.e. Gravity is force that pulls objects towards the planet.
As far as I know, that's 100% fact, unless gravity as we know it has changed.
As far as I know, that's 100% fact, unless gravity as we know it has changed.
No, it's not a 100% fact. It is useful in specific situations given a specific set of parameters and only insomuch as we have currently observed it to work. We could be wrong, there could be something entirely different from gravity that pulls things together and we just don't know it yet. However it is a fact in the sense that it is the most useful explanation, and there is no evidence yet to say that it is not. And I should probably have rephrased. It's not that 'nothing in the world is ever 100% proven', but that 'science never claims 100% accuracy'.
history can be proven. just a small tangent to explain my theory.
i like to think of this idea: we are currently, this second, living in 3 time periods. the past, because those of the future will see this as the past, the present because we are alive in this moment, and the future because those of the past would think of this moment as in the future.
but hold on. the first point of this tangent answers your question. the past is proven because you are living and making the past. if that was the case, would it not be proven?
well, you only know for sure what happens now. as I write this, I cannot know for sure that I am reacting to a topic wich is about history, because I don't see the top of the page. maby I only made this up, I am the only one round here, and you all don't exist, but that I'm only making this all up. and when I have posted this, I can't be sure if I actually write this. you know, the 'brain in a bowl' idea.
I ask myself that same question everyday if history can actually be proven? Well it can be proven to some extent, however, when we start talking about times described int he bible and before there is lots of question that can be raised
