It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

History Does Not Repeat Itself

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSubversiveOne




Of course, history does not repeat itself or it wouldn’t be history. At best, present events might resemble historic events, but given the drastic difference in time, setting, and the elements involved, there is nothing similar in any concrete way, but only according to one’s own fantasy and hindsight.


History does repeat itself because generational learning is lost as time passes and stupidity generally gains the helm once again...

... it's pointless to argue. It would be a repeat.
edit on 1-3-2016 by redoubt because: o to i




posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I think the deeper point the OP makes is that while there are certainly similar events happening today compared to the past, the context is so different — culturally, socially, globally, technologically, geopolitically etc. — that classifying these events as repeating themselves is inaccurate.

Think of it this way: in language, you have words that are used as synonyms (similar in meaning) and those that can be used interchangeably (swapped in place of) with each other. Notice that you can swap words that are interchangeable with each other and most of the time the sentence will still make sense. However, if you swap a synonym and use the exact same sentence, much of the time it won't make sense.

So, events taking place today are not directly interchangeable with events that happened 100 years ago, but rather "synonyms" of those events.

History is a fascinating topic, but it can be difficult to understand authentically with a modern brain.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Now there is some proper thinking.

I didn't want to do it for fear of fallacy, but any historian will basically say the same thing, that history does not repeat itself.

I like the notion of a "synonymous" account of history as you expressed it. We make comparisons in such a manner, at least to make sense of historical events.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Now there is some proper thinking.

I didn't want to do it for fear of fallacy, but any historian will basically say the same thing, that history does not repeat itself.

I like the notion of a "synonymous" account of history as you expressed it. We make comparisons in such a manner, at least to make sense of historical events.

Semantics. History repeats itself because is generational, cyclical; necessary. Future generations repeat the past in order to re-remember the past (not that it seems to make any difference) as the clues regarding "do not follow this path" are unheeded.
edit on 2-3-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
You guys need to put a lot more thought into this.

Do we create reality or are we making choices from a set of possibilities/probabilities?

In all likelihood, we do not create anything - instead, we choose from what already exists as possible.

Free will or free to do what you can will?



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
You guys need to put a lot more thought into this.
Do we create reality or are we making choices from a set of possibilities/probabilities?
In all likelihood, we do not create anything - instead, we choose from what already exists as possible.
Free will or free to do what you can will?

You are in charge. You create everything to your potential. You have/are everything to be blamed for missed opportunities. You create everything within YOUR WILL all is possible to create. Of course we create; its our job.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

If that is true, was it always true or is it because I created said potential. If I create my own potential, did I create my own potential to create my own potential? You see how that creates an infinite paradox only solvable by someone who is, himself, potential? Someone who always was? I did not always exist, so for me to be able to will anything, my will must have came from someone's will who is, himself, eternal will. (the spirit of God.)

Thus we choose from what is possible, maybe.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: vethumanbeing

If that is true, was it always true or is it because I created said potential. If I create my own potential, did I create my own potential to create my own potential? You see how that creates an infinite paradox only solvable by someone who is, himself, potential? Someone who always was? I did not always exist, so for me to be able to will anything, my will must have came from someone's will who is, himself, eternal will. (the spirit of God.)
Thus we choose from what is possible, maybe.

There is no 'IF". 'Cosmic Will' says this as an aphorism (true: You are its expression). Of course you can create whatever your will allows. Your potential belongs to you as you are an individual expression of Cosmic Will (God). Your personality above Ego develops as Cosmic will/intent. The thing or idea missed is God's or Cosmic will/being is consistently REFINED by the human being. It only knows what it is through its experience as a HUMAN (it created). The Human provided IT a vessel to experience consciousness.
edit on 3-3-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join