A Call to Volksmarschall

[J66185]

Dear volksmarschall,

I know you mentioned that history is the least intellectual subject in philosophy, but what about Military History Visualized? I know that you often disdain documentaries because they have limited methods to convey information, but his channel worth it for those who are interested in solely military history?

 

[volksmarschall]

My beef with history as being a not-so intellectual subject is on several grounds. First, history doesn't really teach you how to think. Second, history doesn't really teach you much about the world -- how it operates and its inner machinations. Third, history doesn't teach you about nature or metaphysics. History in the driest sense is just a random collection of dates, events, people; until history is brought under a comprehensive philosophy of history it is a rather non-intellectual discipline and exercise. Knowing a lot about, say, the Thirty Years' War is nice and all, knowing the dates and individuals involved, outcomes, and so forth--but so what? Knowing the history of the Thirty Years' War is nothing when compared to a rigorous philosophy of history that understands that conflict as part epochal war and constitutional-juridical struggle. (I say this as someone with a B.A. in history, among other subject matter and who is a technical historian on account of academic publication and being cited.) Knowledge of history becomes useful when subjugated to other more rigorous disciplines, such as comprehensive and systematic philosophy, economics, or evolutionary science.

I only have a very thin familiarity with MHV (having seen a few of his videos), I tend to avoid YT (apart from lectures or interviews with serious academics) as I find it a cesspool (for the most part) of dilettantes and thought-cheerleading, superficial as superficial can get for quick consumption in our increasingly digitized and consumeristic age. That's not to say, however, I'm a sort of neo-luddite; there are great uses and benefits of technology and the internet -- mostly for resourcing and archival purposes which allows one to have greater access to texts, data, resources, etc.; and also allows for access to international publications (online-access) that one would never really have had access to a century or even thirty years ago. Never, however, would I regard Wikipedia (which is deeply misleading and oftentimes flat out wrong), YT stars or channels, as the manifestation of serious thought; and such sites, even the better ones that exist, are no substitution for actual reading. As it relates to MHV, he has nice graphics and does offer citations which serve him well enough.

But, nothing beats actual reading, and nothing beats cross or interdisciplinary study and engagement. (I say this not because I happened to be a student of both the social sciences and humanities with a strong lay interest in evolutionary science and biology as a reader of the journal Nature.) Such is the way of the world as we become more consumeristic and expecting cheap and quick thrills; as this culture of cheap consumerism spreads so too does this have ramifications on how people digest "intellectual seriousness" which is hardly intellectual or serious.

My view on the matter is that the vast majority of internet sites is if one utilizes them as a starting point that's a good thing. But to regard such cheap consumption as serious is a problem. When he cites from a work you should probably track it down and read it. But I'm a paranoid anti-consumerist who is not without being guilty of his own hypocrisies!

 

[J66185]

Does the list happen to include Stephen Colbert and John Oliver out of curiosity?

 

[J66185]

Also, are Historia Civilis and Indy Neidell good places to start looking for historic resources in particular?

 

[Zinegata]

I know you mentioned that history is the least intellectual subject in philosophy, but what about Military History Visualized? I know that you often disdain documentaries because they have limited methods to convey information, but his channel worth it for those who are interested in solely military history?

Full disclosure: I've known Mr. Kast (who created the MHV channel) before MHV became popular.

Military History Visualized is frankly a cut above most other Youtube military history channels because it has delved much deeper into actual academic studies of various military matters. Mr. Kast isn't content to simply repeat myths and popular conceptions to farm views and upvotes, he actually reads up and share information from some hefty books and journals (some of which are available only in German). He's also careful to point out alternate viewpoints.

This is partly because military history is studied and treated very differently in Europe - particularly in Germany and Austria - which he discusses with The Chieftain in some of his most recent videos. By contrast a lot of "historical" English-language content on Youtube is exactly as volksmarschall describes: "a cesspool (for the most part) of dilettantes and thought-cheerleading, superficial as superficial can get for quick consumption in our increasingly digitized and consumeristic age".

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

My beef with history as being a not-so intellectual subject is on several grounds. First, history doesn't really teach you how to think. Second, history doesn't really teach you much about the world -- how it operates and its inner machinations. Third, history doesn't teach you about nature or metaphysics. History in the driest sense is just a random collection of dates, events, people; until history is brought under a comprehensive philosophy of history it is a rather non-intellectual discipline and exercise. Knowing a lot about, say, the Thirty Years' War is nice and all, knowing the dates and individuals involved, outcomes, and so forth--but so what? Knowing the history of the Thirty Years' War is nothing when compared to a rigorous philosophy of history that understands that conflict as part epochal war and constitutional-juridical struggle. (I say this as someone with a B.A. in history, among other subject matter and who is a technical historian on account of academic publication and being cited.) Knowledge of history becomes useful when subjugated to other more rigorous disciplines, such as comprehensive and systematic philosophy, economics, or evolutionary science.

I only have a very thin familiarity with MHV (having seen a few of his videos), I tend to avoid YT (apart from lectures or interviews with serious academics) as I find it a cesspool (for the most part) of dilettantes and thought-cheerleading, superficial as superficial can get for quick consumption in our increasingly digitized and consumeristic age. That's not to say, however, I'm a sort of neo-luddite; there are great uses and benefits of technology and the internet -- mostly for resourcing and archival purposes which allows one to have greater access to texts, data, resources, etc.; and also allows for access to international publications (online-access) that one would never really have had access to a century or even thirty years ago. Never, however, would I regard Wikipedia (which is deeply misleading and oftentimes flat out wrong), YT stars or channels, as the manifestation of serious thought; and such sites, even the better ones that exist, are no substitution for actual reading. As it relates to MHV, he has nice graphics and does offer citations which serve him well enough.

But, nothing beats actual reading, and nothing beats cross or interdisciplinary study and engagement. (I say this not because I happened to be a student of both the social sciences and humanities with a strong lay interest in evolutionary science and biology as a reader of the journal Nature.) Such is the way of the world as we become more consumeristic and expecting cheap and quick thrills; as this culture of cheap consumerism spreads so too does this have ramifications on how people digest "intellectual seriousness" which is hardly intellectual or serious.

My view on the matter is that the vast majority of internet sites is if one utilizes them as a starting point that's a good thing. But to regard such cheap consumption as serious is a problem. When he cites from a work you should probably track it down and read it. But I'm a paranoid anti-consumerist who is not without being guilty of his own hypocrisies!

In part I agree with you, in part I disagree with you.

I have told this story before but it bears repeating as it applies directly to this case.

When I was in high school, at my older sisters wedding, sitting around our house before the event over cocktails I was privy to a conversation between two uncles from different sides of the family that did not know each other very well. What they said has stuck with me my entire life.

The first uncle worked for Time Life Publishing as an editor. This man was the primary creator of what became Time Life Books; a rich series of tomes that were produced throughout the sixties, seventies and eighties - which will appeal to your quasi-Luddite sensibilities. Perhaps you remember them, but there are many here too young to remember that words used to be bound and kept in libraries before they were digitized and subject to overt manipulation.

The second uncle was a colonel in the US Air Force, a fighter pilot who flew missions throughout Vietnam.

They were discussing how one learns to understand the world around them.

The editor, the man who dealt with words, said that an understanding of History was the most important of the liberal arts. A true understanding of where we began, how we progressed, was crucial to knowing where we now are and where we need to go next. History is not a dry, dusty collection of facts; but the repository of all human knowledge where all human wisdom comes together. One must know where one came from, or the history of their individual discipline for example, to learn where one must go next.

The military officer, the man who dealt with 'history' if you will, said that an understanding of English (Language in general, for our non-native English speaking friends) is the most important of the liberal arts. The process of collecting your thoughts, placing them on paper, is the key process to understanding what you yourself believe. The articulation of an idea is the key to learning what one truly believes or how one views a specific event.

It is no small wonder from this I ended up studying English and History for the rest of my life. And you, who have a BA in history from an accredited university, understand the liberal arts are not isolated disciplines. The concept of brilliance is bringing disparate ideas from separate disciplines together to understand and see the bigger picture for yourself.

So, yes; those people who study 'history' as a series of isolated incidents that do not intersect, who take things out of context and focus on minutiae rather than the grand design, are fooling themselves that they understand what they are talking about.

But, no; history, writ large, incorporating the acts and deeds of man across all disciplines and forming the entire evolution of mankind, is invaluable to an understanding of the world we live in.

 

[volksmarschall]

So, yes; those people who study 'history' as a series of isolated incidents that do not intersect, who take things out of context and focus on minutiae rather than the grand design, are fooling themselves that they understand what they are talking about.

But, no; history, writ large, incorporating the acts and deeds of man across all disciplines and forming the entire evolution of mankind, is invaluable to an understanding of the world we live in.

That is precisely what I said concerning the problem of isolated history vs. history supplementing other disciplines for the purposes of interdisciplinary or cross disciplinary work. But I'll bear repeating what you admit to be self-evident; that dry knowledge of history as random facts and events is not an intellectual endeavor at all until history is a foundational supplement for other disciplines and intellectual exercises.

History in the driest sense is just a random collection of dates, events, people; until history is brought under a comprehensive philosophy of history...Knowledge of history becomes useful when subjugated to other more rigorous disciplines, such as comprehensive and systematic philosophy, economics, or evolutionary science.

English is certainly not the most important language for the liberal arts either. Without argue Latin and Greek are. Without Latin or Greek the liberal arts die a cold an crude death; just as T.S. Eliot predicted.

EDIT: Though native English speakers should know their literature of their own language. To throw shade on my alma mater, Yale, you can now acquire a B.A. in English without having read Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, and Byron, and Tennyson, how sad.

 

[volksmarschall]

Does the list happen to include Stephen Colbert and John Oliver out of curiosity?

Pretty much anyone on TV. But yes, that list does include Colbert, Oliver, Maher, Ingraham, Shapiro, and the whole litany of petty shallow thought shouters who dominate the TV screen.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

What is all this about?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

That is precisely what I said concerning the problem of isolated history vs. history supplementing other disciplines for the purposes of interdisciplinary or cross disciplinary work. But I'll bear repeating what you admit to be self-evident; that dry knowledge of history as random facts and events is not an intellectual endeavor at all until history is a foundational supplement for other disciplines and intellectual exercises.



English is certainly not the most important language for the liberal arts either. Without argue Latin and Greek are. Without Latin or Greek the liberal arts die a cold an crude death; just as T.S. Eliot predicted.

EDIT: Though native English speakers should know their literature of their own language. To throw shade on my alma mater, Yale, you can now acquire a B.A. in English without having read Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, and Byron, and Tennyson, how sad.

That is specifically why I ammended the conversation as ‘language’, the ability to communicate and comprehend ones own thoughts in ones own language, rather than English in and of itself.

 

[Zinegata]

The concept of brilliance is bringing disparate ideas from separate disciplines together to understand and see the bigger picture for yourself.

Alternatively it can just lead to people lying to themselves even harder with more and more convoluted trains of logic, particularly as history and liberal arts tend to fail to collaborate with sciences that rely on actual hard evidence such as archaeology, engineering, or psychology. Little wonder for instance that history tends to take autobiographies at face value and a reflection of the author's true motives and feelings, whereas a psychologist or media practitioner would have a deeply critical view of such work and see it largely as an avenue of self-promotion.

It is, in fact, relatively easy to string together a train of thought and pretend you've now "solved" the universal questions of life. It is much more difficult to accept when evidence appears that contradicts these easy solutions and quite bluntly it's a reflection of how myopic many Internet historians (even supposedly trained ones) are given that their perennial reaction to such contrary evidence is to feign false offense and then attack the messenger.

 

[volksmarschall]

The concept of brilliance is bringing disparate ideas from separate disciplines together to understand and see the bigger picture for yourself.

Alternatively it can just lead to people lying to themselves even harder with more and more convoluted trains of logic, particularly as history and liberal arts tend to fail to collaborate with sciences that rely on actual hard evidence such as archaeology, engineering, or psychology. Little wonder for instance that history tends to take autobiographies at face value and a reflection of the author's true motives and feelings, whereas a psychologist or media practitioner would have a deeply critical view of such work and see it largely as an avenue of self-promotion.

It is, in fact, relatively easy to string together a train of thought and pretend you've now "solved" the universal questions of life. It is much more difficult to accept when evidence appears that contradicts these easy solutions and quite bluntly it's a reflection of how myopic many Internet historians (even supposedly trained ones) are given that their perennial reaction to such contrary evidence is to feign false offense and then attack the messenger.

Not to mention the problems of epistemology that can be raised; it is widely known (except among those history fan boys who think history is the greatest intellectual enterprise) that the Historical School is the weakest branch of epistemology when standing alone. Which only further raises the problem of history as a repository of wisdom. What is wisdom? The wisest of historians were often crypto-philosophers and scientists, or individuals with a primary discipline other than history precisely because they subordinated history as an additional form of empirical evidence to their work. Which returns us again to an earlier point I raised about history as history not telling one how to understand the world or teaching about first principles or nature. Not to also mention the implicit Whiggism of the Historical School which renders the past as less meaningful than the present; those of us in the present are closer to the truth or have the truth while those in the past were swallowed up in darkness and ignorance.

Historical data is often unscientific insofar that people just see historical events and then try to draw connections. These lends itself to not only poor association of random facts now cut off from possible examination of outlying factors. Historians, as historians, can't draw theorems from the facts that they uncover or utilize because they don't understand modeling, lay out assumptions, concern themselves with variables, or causation. Most historians are ill-equipped to deal with questions of epistemology and first principles; this is only magnified one-hundred fold on YT or the TV. The historian might say something like tax cuts don't lead to economic growth and point to 20 years of "data" to support their point. The historian is out of his league. He has entered the realm of economics and economic modeling which is the science of human action, interaction, and choices. There are a multiplicity of other subject matter that is tied to an economy beyond taxation. There are millions of economic agents in an economy all acting -- if you reject homo economicus -- differently with different choice preferences and with different environments in which they are acting as agents with competing interests. Moreover once you learn statistics professionally it's amazing what you can do to manipulate such data (take a larger or smaller sample size and you can easily skew data for whatever purpose you like -- as visual animals laying out an axis to make data look like a spike or almost no movement upward at all (with the same numbers) and you vastly alter a person's perception which calls into question empiricism as a valid epistemology). Likewise, the historian may posit the great man acting in history theory and see history as a contest of said great men; a trained philosopher can already deduce several things just from this: First is that the historian rejects possible geopolitical and environmental factors over human action; second is that the historian is probably a methodological individualist (with or without knowing it); third in positing the great individual the historian downplays factors of communitarian or societal influences upon their formation and actions.

I love history, have read thousands of history books and own hundreds in my own library, two of my four academic articles are historical/history-based papers. But history, and history fan boys, need a good dose of medicine as to the intellectuality of history as an enterprise. Which is why, as I've said to many personally, historiography is the best example of history done with an intellectual concern as historiography as the study of the study of history exposes the reader (or student) to a vast array of thinking and perspectives.

 

[J66185]

Ok, who are these people disagreeing in the forums? I think we might need to bring Arnold Schwarzenegger to put this trolling down now.

 

[volksmarschall]

Ok, who are these people disagreeing in the forums? I think we might need to bring Arnold Schwarzenegger to put this trolling down now.

What would you expect from shallow Wikipedia and YT “intellectuals” who think that the height of intellectuality is who has consumed the most superficial materials? There’s a reason why I mostly stay in AARland.

Coming to the History Forum or OT is like (re)entering the Cave and listening to people argue over shadows.

 

[J66185]

What would you expect from shallow Wikipedia and YT “intellectuals” who think that the height of intellectuality is who has consumed the most superficial materials? There’s a reason why I mostly stay in AARland.

Coming to the History Forum or OT is like (re)entering the Cave and listening to people argue over shadows.

Hohoho, aren't you quite the subtle killer comedian these days? FEEL THE BURN.

 

[Zinegata]

I love history, have read thousands of history books and own hundreds in my own library, two of my four academic articles are historical/history-based papers. But history, and history fan boys, need a good dose of medicine as to the intellectuality of history as an enterprise. Which is why, as I've said to many personally, historiography is the best example of history done with an intellectual concern as historiography as the study of the study of history exposes the reader (or student) to a vast array of thinking and perspectives.

A kindred spirit!

 

[J66185]

Now, I know that you mentioned that alternate history works (and science fiction) are signs of intellectual immaturity, can you tell how do the works of Ray Bradbury, Harry Turtledove, Eric Flint, and finally, Stirling Stephen Michael are exactly intellectually immature or I am just wasting your time?

 

[volksmarschall]

Now, I know that you mentioned that alternate history works (and science fiction) are signs of intellectual immaturity, can you tell how do the works of Ray Bradbury, Harry Turtledove, Eric Flint, and finally, Stirling Stephen Michael are exactly intellectually immature or I am just wasting your time?

Literature is of tremendous value and I have published on the importance of literature and the humanities more generally. But then there is a great distinction between the literary classics and alternative history novels which may have a certain charm and appeal but don't address more pertinent questions as did classical poetry or early novels. For instance, Jonathan Swift's great work Gulliver's Travels is more than just literary satire, it is satirizing commentary against the mechanical philosophers of the 17th and early 18th century, especially when Gulliver reaches Laputa where the Laputans have, despite their mastery of science and math, have become less than human and can't do routine tasks or see straight (how funny!; they've lost the bigger picture about human life). Look at Dante's Divine Comedy, where each of the three books ends with Dante looking up to the stars (implication being man's transcendental desire and the order and beauty that illuminates man coming from afar rather than beneath); or the structure of Inferno where those in hell prior to the City of Dis are culpable for their misdirected desire while those inside the walls of the City of Dis are guilty of not only misdirected desire but also a rejection of nature or Truth with far more serious consequences to human society (note how levels 6-10 are inside a city). Take Homer's Iliad and Odyssey where when Odysseus ventures into the underworld he meets Achilles and Agamemnon. Achilles scoffs at Odysseus's praise of him and instead says he would rather be alive with his family. Agamemnon asks about his son and died because his wife was unfaithful to him. Odysseus's wife is faithful to him which provides for his refuge and salvation. What, then, is Homer's grand tale communicating about what men seek? The glories of war and wealth which motivate irrational man is not where his satisfaction lay, but it is in commitment to family and fatherland where human desire is best fulfilled.

Huxley's Brave New World, one of my favorite novels, is a blistering satire on what a world of technological, mechanical, consumerism would breed. Hedonism as the highest goal in life leads to wild orgy parties but are the humans really human anymore? Fahrenheit 451 is also among my most favorite books, and in an essay of mine I had published a few days ago I made direct reference to it. Literature is where the great myths of the age form and are told. (Here I use "myth" in its traditional sense: grand story; I do not use that term with any pejorative attachment as if often the case today.)

Films, though certainly digitized and artificial and most superficial and meant for mass consumption, can nevertheless put their thumb on important issues. Take 2001: A Space, the film that has begun the new mythology for our celluloid age. The film is a tale not of evolutionary science, as most cursory viewers think, but a film cautioning the problem of transhumanism and how transhumanism is the next logical step for the mechanical evolutionary impetus. We start with organic and biological man (the great ape) where we have no illusion as to life being something organic and biological. By the time the bone becomes ship we find humans encased in artificial suits which their life depends. The astronauts act like robots, move like robots, and speak without passion, in monotone voices like a robot -- because they have become, effectively, mechanical men. Meanwhile Hal 9000, though a computer, is conscious. Hal's consciousness and fear drives his actions just as it was with primordial man. Who is human? This is commentary on the mind-body problem in philosophy if you're a monist or dualist (rather than unitive pluralist or hylomorphist).

The original Star Wars builds on this problem of organic and biological life threatened by the encroachment of technology. What threatens organic and natural life in the Star Wars universe? The Death Star -- a mechanical monstrosity. Who is the main villain? Darth Vader -- a mostly robotic cyborg who isn't really human. How does Luke defeat that which threatens life? He finds his spiritual core (the Force) and unites with it to defeat the super machine; to be human is to find the spiritual core that links us with the miracle of life. The important moment is when Luke turns off the targeting computer and everyone freaks out. But it is at this moment that Luke has freed himself from complete technological dependency and is one with the Force which allows him to destroy the Death Star. But what is equally communicated here is that man and technology will co-exist as long as man has a spiritual center that keeps him human and therefore keeps him from becoming overwhelmed by the temptations of technology.

Science-Fiction, at least the better sci-fi works, deal with this problem head on.

Eric Cohen, In the Shadow of Progress
Charles Rubin, Eclipse of Man

The dialectic of literature and philosophy goes back to Aristophanes and Socrates! I have an extremely high view of literature and it remains central to great intellects precisely because of the nature of literature often commenting on prevailing intellectual trends and concerns (look at Leo Tolstoy as another great example: Napoleon, that great man, who is possessed by the Geist and has, therefore, lost his humanity except in that moment on Borodino when looking at the carnage and realizing the preciousness of human life, rather than something to be thrown away in the unconscious bid for greatness in doing the work of the Weltgeist, he has his only moment of humanity--Tolstoy's warning is how becoming a slave to History de-humanizes us). Now, of course, traditional literature is far superior to contemporary literature which has become, in many ways, infected with the same superficial shallowness mandated in our consumeristic world. This is not always the case however.

I don't read alternative history novels. I don't care for it precisely because I find it uninteresting and not relevant to pressing matters of the day. You can always find my educational website in my information and cycle through whatever might interest you there. Three of my bookshelves are filled with just literature among all the other subject matter I study and read seriously as a layman. Given that about a half dozen of my more popular published essays have dealt directly, or indirectly, on the crisis of humanism and transhumanism, I'm a modest reader of science-fiction as I find relevant concerns/commentary flowing through much of the sci-fi world. Humans are story-telling animals. That should indicate to you my feelings toward literature; but not J.K. Rowling.

 

[XYN]

My beef with history as being a not-so intellectual subject is on several grounds. First, history doesn't really teach you how to think. Second, history doesn't really teach you much about the world -- how it operates and its inner machinations. Third, history doesn't teach you about nature or metaphysics. History in the driest sense is just a random collection of dates, events, people; until history is brought under a comprehensive philosophy of history it is a rather non-intellectual discipline and exercise. Knowing a lot about, say, the Thirty Years' War is nice and all, knowing the dates and individuals involved, outcomes, and so forth--but so what? Knowing the history of the Thirty Years' War is nothing when compared to a rigorous philosophy of history that understands that conflict as part epochal war and constitutional-juridical struggle. (I say this as someone with a B.A. in history, among other subject matter and who is a technical historian on account of academic publication and being cited.) Knowledge of history becomes useful when subjugated to other more rigorous disciplines, such as comprehensive and systematic philosophy, economics, or evolutionary science.

I only have a very thin familiarity with MHV (having seen a few of his videos), I tend to avoid YT (apart from lectures or interviews with serious academics) as I find it a cesspool (for the most part) of dilettantes and thought-cheerleading, superficial as superficial can get for quick consumption in our increasingly digitized and consumeristic age. That's not to say, however, I'm a sort of neo-luddite; there are great uses and benefits of technology and the internet -- mostly for resourcing and archival purposes which allows one to have greater access to texts, data, resources, etc.; and also allows for access to international publications (online-access) that one would never really have had access to a century or even thirty years ago. Never, however, would I regard Wikipedia (which is deeply misleading and oftentimes flat out wrong), YT stars or channels, as the manifestation of serious thought; and such sites, even the better ones that exist, are no substitution for actual reading. As it relates to MHV, he has nice graphics and does offer citations which serve him well enough.

But, nothing beats actual reading, and nothing beats cross or interdisciplinary study and engagement. (I say this not because I happened to be a student of both the social sciences and humanities with a strong lay interest in evolutionary science and biology as a reader of the journal Nature.) Such is the way of the world as we become more consumeristic and expecting cheap and quick thrills; as this culture of cheap consumerism spreads so too does this have ramifications on how people digest "intellectual seriousness" which is hardly intellectual or serious.

My view on the matter is that the vast majority of internet sites is if one utilizes them as a starting point that's a good thing. But to regard such cheap consumption as serious is a problem. When he cites from a work you should probably track it down and read it. But I'm a paranoid anti-consumerist who is not without being guilty of his own hypocrisies!

If you contributed to Wikipedia even a fraction of the tl;drs you write on this forum, it could be better. That's the whole point of collaborative decentralised resources - if you know better and have sources to back it up, or to dispute, you are welcome to do it.

 

[Pzt_Kami]

Ok, who are these people disagreeing in the forums? I think we might need to bring Arnold Schwarzenegger to put this trolling down now.

I don't know him (volksmarschall) but at least for Me his Looking from top to down like thinking everyone is wrong but he knows everything while others actually doing something and contributing is what I dislike. Again I don't know him ,but this is what I got from 2-3 posts I've read of his posts , so appology if I'm wrong