Read on Twitter
If a person put a significant amount of work into something, they generally have an agenda. They want to get something out of it. This includes anything in writing.
Usually, the author is trying to convince you of something. Texts serve as PR, or propaganda. The older the text, the harder it was to check its veracity, so the more careful you gotta be.
Reports of armed conflicts inflated the numbers of enemies killed (conquistadors did this). Accounts of war glorified achievements and dehumanised opponents (Caesar& #39;s account of Gallic Wars.) People wrote diaries with intent of publishing them.
People who transcribed and preserved texts also had agendas. Anything that survived until this day was classified by someone as "important", either based on their agenda or on their prejudices.
We don& #39;t really know how many artefacts created by "unimportant" people are gone. "How to Suppress Women& #39;s Writing" by Joanna Russ lists some ways in which a work of art created by a woman might get lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Suppress_Women%27s_Writing">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Suppress_Women%27s_Writing">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_...
It& #39;s important to compare primary sources (original sources of information) against each other, and against material evidence, to account for the bias.
Problem is, the farther back we go, the less there is to compare.
Problem is, the farther back we go, the less there is to compare.
I don& #39;t think people realise how much of the past is just *gone*, like it fell into a black hole. A lot of what we know about the past is guesses, and plausible stories we tell ourselves.
There& #39;s a reason you don& #39;t see much Slavic mythology in pop culture.
We& #39;ve mostly got etymological analysis of names found in manuscripts, fill-the-blank in "standard Indo-European pantheon", and folk tales.
We& #39;ve mostly got etymological analysis of names found in manuscripts, fill-the-blank in "standard Indo-European pantheon", and folk tales.
"A folk tale about God and Devil - it must have been a myth about Perun and Weles!"
"This manuscript mentions Chors. The name sounds like the Persian word for Sun, or the Slavic word for weak. Therefore it must have been a god of sun, or maybe moon."
"This manuscript mentions Chors. The name sounds like the Persian word for Sun, or the Slavic word for weak. Therefore it must have been a god of sun, or maybe moon."
Secondary sources: analyses, critiques, commentaries, are not objective either. Every author has an agenda. It& #39;s always important to know the personal and social context for the book you& #39;re reading.
For example, in 19th century people developed a new social technology for coordinating and governing a large territory of people: a nation.
Authors of that time were attempting to provide legitimacy to their nations. They invented histories. Tolkien was not alone.
Authors of that time were attempting to provide legitimacy to their nations. They invented histories. Tolkien was not alone.
The Romantic obsession with folklore and pre-Christian religions was not an accident. They were attempting to construct "the spirit of a nation" (a national identity), and cherry-pick enough historical "proof" to give it some legs.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala ">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kale...
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala ">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kale...
In late 19th century, Max Weber, considered one of the founders of sociology, was attempting to prove that his preferred religion (protestantism) and social order were the pinnacles of human achievement.
He introduced the idea of socioevolution, or social progress.
He introduced the idea of socioevolution, or social progress.
Weber thought society progressed from magical animism, through polytheism, pantheism, and monotheism, culminating in the WASP. A single axis on which every society could be placed, from savages to civilised people.
You can guess what a convenient justification this was.
You can guess what a convenient justification this was.
This concept of "evolution", understood as inevitable progress in one direction from primitive to "evolved", is still with us, in our pool of memes, even though social sciences have long realised it& #39;s bullshit.
It is encysted in popular language of spirituality and psychology.
It is encysted in popular language of spirituality and psychology.
Evolution - without scare quotes - is the process of adaptating to the environment. There are many factors involved, and many local maxima. There is never a single "best solution".
Human brain is great at comparing two things according to a single criterion.
"Which one is larger? Which one is redder?"
Human brain is shit at comparing two things according to multiple criterions.
"This one is larger, but that one is redder. Which one is better?"
"Which one is larger? Which one is redder?"
Human brain is shit at comparing two things according to multiple criterions.
"This one is larger, but that one is redder. Which one is better?"
Human brain reacts to multi-criterion optimisation with a feeling of uncertainty and frustration. It resolves the problem by internally applying heuristics. We perceive the results of heuristics as feelings.
Humans who lose access to feelings struggle to make decisions.
Also: when you ask a human to justify their decision, they won& #39;t be able to (it was the result of a largely unconscious heuristic), so they will invent a story.
Also: when you ask a human to justify their decision, they won& #39;t be able to (it was the result of a largely unconscious heuristic), so they will invent a story.
And this is why you should always read critically. Regardless of what the text is about, it tells a story, and that story has been invented to support some decision.
End thread.
