Dealing with history - culture, tradition, economics

Is there something like "culture, tradition and next to economics"? And what would it look like if Kosmas wrote his chronicle today?

Cosmos
Cosmos

Take Kosmas, move it to the present and let him write a chronicle. Does it sound absurd to you? Not to me, it could be incredibly interesting.

"Our Lady Libuše and all the people are telling you to come soon and accept the dominion that is destined for you and your descendants. Everything we have, we ourselves are in your hands; you are prince, you are judge, you are governor, you are a defender, we choose you as our lord. ”At that speech, the wise man stopped, as if foretelling the future, he stopped, he stuck into the ground he held in his hand, and let go of the oxen, he cried out, "Go where you came from!" But the hazel he had planted in the ground sprouted three tall branches, which is stranger, with leaves and nuts. And when the men saw what was happening here, they stood still. He kindly invited them for breakfast as a host, took moldy bread and a piece of cheese from the bast bag, laid the bag on the lawn instead of a table, a gray tablecloth and so on. As they ate breakfast and drank water from the jug, the two branches or branches dried and fell, but the third grew greatly in height and breadth. This filled the guests with even greater wonder and awe. And he says, “What are you wondering about? Know that many masters will be born of our family, but only one will always rule. But if your mistress had not been in such a hurry with the matter, but had been waiting for a short time for fate, and if she had not sent for me so soon, the country would have as many lords as nature would give to the world of the princely sons.

He would probably wonder why almost no one would want to accept his image of Mr. Havel as a god-chosen and gifted ruler, or why few would accept his interpretation of the great economic crisis as a "punishment he had already imposed on his subjects."

How would Kosmas explain floods, big storms, mental illness? What could - according to him - be for them? How can Kosmas be able to give us a credible picture of the past today?

Cosmos, which would have been moved from the 12th century to the present day, would probably not just become a chronicler or historian. He couldn't. Cosmas was (like all other historians and chroniclers of the past) historian of his time. His interpretation of history directly depended on the knowledge of his time.

If we moved it to the present, we would describe and analyze our past on the basis of knowledge from the 11th and 12th centuries - such material would probably be very interesting and useful in various sciences and philosophies, but historians themselves would be from very likely directly to no avail - simply because he would not describe the things that happened correctly and truthfully.

The fact is that history as a science is the application of a synthesis of current knowledge to things that have happened. As knowledge is constantly changing and evolving, it is important to realize that she is "History" is not and cannot yet be definitive - we have to deal with it again and again, analyze it again and again.

If the inherent knowledge was "class exploitation," history was also analyzed from this perspective. If this "knowledge" is rejected today, (at least part of) the former "history" is logically rejected.

And that is why it is necessary to deal with historical events again and again. Moments that have been analyzed a thousand times, researched a thousand times, were often researched in this way precisely because each age has its knowledge, of which positions it is History examined.

Just as we cannot accept Kosma's conception of his history as final, correct and definitive today, so we cannot accept the present conception of history as final, correct and definitive today. For example, our descendants in 500 years would certainly not take it that way.

"Definitive" history would mean "definitive" knowledge - the end of development, the end of discovery, learning, understanding. "Definitive history" is the de facto end of civilization.

Empirical approach

We come to an interesting fact - knowledge they are not dependent on historical science. The whole thing is exactly the opposite - historical science is directly dependent on knowledge. Other disciplines, whether natural or human, are not dependent on historical science. Historical science, on the other hand, is dependent on other disciplines.

The use of empirical (historical) methods is thus at least dubious in science, because - logically - the fact that scientific theory does not fully agree with historical "reality" does not necessarily mean that that theory is wrong. On the contrary, it may mean that historical science is wrong.

Culture, traditions and economics

Can culture and tradition be explained by economics? Can not. Why? Because it must be explained to her.

Tradition as customs and customs are something passed on - they are a historical fact. This historical fact can be described by historical science - which explains it on the basis of current knowledge. Therefore the humanities, including economics, must be able to explain culture and tradition. Without it, historical science would not be able to describe them.

Economics as a science of human behavior (which also results in wealth, satisfying unlimited needs from limited resources) then analyzes tradition and culture both from the point of view of functional - how existing traditions and culture affect human behavior (both tradition and culture "work" in human behavior), and from the genesis - how tradition and culture arise as a result of human action.

Adjacent?

Therefore, there is no such thing as "economy, tradition and culture "side by side. There is "tradition and culture" and consequently "economy“, As a science that (also) describes and explains them.

0 comments

  1. Ad “It was the influence of A. Smith's invisible hand. And it's no different today. ”Really? Are you not hiding the second option (cargo)? Somehow it doesn't seem to me in the whole context.

  2. You write:
    If the original knowledge was "class exploitation," history was also analyzed from this perspective. If this "knowledge" is rejected today, (at least part of) the former "history" is logically rejected.
    Do you know what scrofulosis is? This is inherited tuberculosis. Children in the 19th century suffered from this. The children worked in English textiles for 10-12 hours a day. You know what rickets is, it's the destruction of bones due to a lack of vitamin D. Children suffer at the same time. Can you imagine working as a ten-year-old in a cotton spinning mill 12 hours a day in a workplace that has been permanently watered down due to dust? The children were in soaked clothes all the time.
    It was the influence of A. Smith's invisible hand. And today it is no different.
    When you put on a cheap T-shirt, then the children in Bangladeshi spun it and people went for 3 € / day.
    Try to imagine working as a 12-year-old in a mine in Bolivia, or making a living picking petals at a dump in Brazil.
    What do you know about history and exploitation. History has always been interpreted in a way that fits into the current ideology.
    What I wrote are indisputable facts. Facts are facts, and they can't even be "okecat",
    nor as knowledge to reject.
    Otherwise, read on at
    http://premysljankroupa.blog.idnes.cz/c/132652/Otcove-komunismu-dil-IV.html

  3. if it is not that it has always been a bag in the Czech Republic with the economy

Comments are off.