The Uses of History
Gordon Wood's defense of objective history is salutary, and besides this, as one would expect from a historian of his eminence, he makes many illuminating remarks about concrete issues in American history. Despite its considerable merits, though, his book suffers from a fundamental flaw. He protests against ideologists who impose their own concerns on the past; but Wood himself has definite views about the nature of the past that are as much theoretical impositions as those of the writers he challenges. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (3)
#######
#######
History alone cannot be of any use without
sound logic applied to it. And because we
now live in an age of Marxist/socialist/
feminist EMOTIONALISM - recall feminist
icon Gloria Steinem's remark to ABC
correspondent John Stossel on national
TV: "Logic doesn't matter!" - history must
either be used as propaganda or ignored
if it doesn't serve Leftism's socialism/
communism purposes.
Again the Left emotes. Its emotions
interfere with that mental capacity for
examining past lessons and current
events, for projecting tose lessons
and events into possible future
outcomes and, then, for drawing
logical conclusions from those
projections--for establishing social
policies which avoid bad outcomes.
Read my articles in here:
Underlying Psychology of Politics
http://underlyingpsychologyofpolitics.blogspot.com/
#######
#######
Published: May 9, 2008 10:40 AM
"Again the Left emotes. Its emotions
interfere with that mental capacity for
examining past lessons and current
events, for projecting tose lessons
and events into possible future
outcomes and, then, for drawing
logical conclusions from those
projections--for establishing social
policies which avoid bad outcomes."
With all due respect, this is complete garbage. I have known quite a few left-wing history professors/historians and their mental capacity for reasoning is not impinged by there emotional states. It's one of the most absurd claims I have ever heard. Let me know if you have a video of a left-wing historian getting worked up and crying while writing about the Gilded Age or smiling in euphoria as he writes about Marxism.
Also, please write your comments in prose.
Published: May 9, 2008 12:46 PM
#######
#######
Attn: Pierre
So, you've never taken a college course in logic?
You commit one of the most common fallacies
found in everyday communications: the
fallacy of treating a generalization as if it were
meant to be evaluated as an absolute statement.
That you've known a "few left-wing historians"
who don't fit my model does not refute the
general rule:
Leftists are ruled by right-brained emotion
while rightists are ruled by left-brained
reason--GENERALLY, which explains why
hysterical leftist Phil Donahue could not
defeat calm rightist Rush Limbaugh in a
debate on any subject.
Read my articles in here:
http://underlyingpsychologyofpolitics.blogspot.com/
By the way, my essay, "The Donahue Syndrome,"
found in the above link, had prompted Rush to
begin noting the difference between Left and Right
with EMOTION and REASON, respectively, in
1988.
#######
#######
Published: May 12, 2008 3:53 PM