Thought for the day...
So I read 1984 for the first time recently, and was quite impressed. Among many of the concepts presented in the book, is the nature of the past. If all history books said that George Washington cut down that cherry tree, and we all heard the story, and if any person on the street either didn't know, or believed it to be true (i.e. no one disbelieved), then isn't it the case that it happened? Is there any difference between it having physically happened, and there being mutual agreement that it happened? Could we reeducate everyone, and change all the history books, and make it so that George had never touched that tree?
What do you think?
I don't want it to, but I have to admit, that in the end, the result is the same...
So I read 1984 for the first time recently, and was quite impressed. Among many of the concepts presented in the book, is the nature of the past. If all history books said that George Washington cut down that cherry tree, and we all heard the story, and if any person on the street either didn't know, or believed it to be true (i.e. no one disbelieved), then isn't it the case that it happened? Is there any difference between it having physically happened, and there being mutual agreement that it happened? Could we reeducate everyone, and change all the history books, and make it so that George had never touched that tree?
What do you think?
I don't want it to, but I have to admit, that in the end, the result is the same...
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
jasiri:
p.s. thank you for enduring my long pyscho babble...i get way too excited about anything conceptually stimulating...
piningshaft:
i think you'll find parts of this article interesting: http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/columns/1997essay/essay970326.asp