Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jeffry's avatar

Great arguments, sound logic, persuasively written - successful in convincing me to care about iterations of Charles, James and George? Not quite.

Simply to take the absurd position of contrarian and not let you sound off unopposed, allow me to defend my blissful ignorance, the ignorance determined by my rural Georgia public education that left me blind to history outside of Sherman’s tragic march to the sea.

It seems like you’re arguing for a cause and effect view of history that is saying because A then B then C and if you understand the logic and know the sequence you gain the full understanding of why things are the way they are now - you can unlock the matrix and rise above it and decide what is truth. I believe history is not progressive or logical but circular - as people are always the same, motivated by the same hierarchy of needs and desires, with all the same flaws - whether you’re a dude in a wig banning Christmas in the 17th century, a dude with a bunch of his bros with bows and arrows on horses on the Asian steppe in the 12th century, or a couple of dudes accumulating chronic old age injuries in 2025. Truth and tradition are not the same. Beliefs aren’t as simple as something handed down like a Christmas tradition. You could say, “well you only say that because you were born into a society that teaches that.” But Ron Swanson was sort of right, how much would a peasant on the steppe getting smacked in the face with an arrow want to agree to the truths we hold self evident? Probably quite a bit. Articulation of an idea doesn’t create the idea. And I think the matrix is too big and complicated to assume you’ve got a complete enough grasp of all the possible factors to draw any great definitive conclusions. History is endlessly determined. It’s like looking at a river and saying, look, that tree on the bank just fell into the water, that’s why the level of the river is rising.

Rather, I’d say:

“A generation goes, and a generation comes,

but the earth remains forever.

The sun rises, and the sun goes down,

and hastens to the place where it rises.

The wind blows to the south

and goes around to the north;

around and around goes the wind,

and on its circuits the wind returns.

All streams run to the sea,

but the sea is not full;

to the place where the streams flow,

there they flow again.

All things are full of weariness;

a man cannot utter it;

the eye is not satisfied with seeing,

nor the ear filled with hearing.

What has been is what will be,

and what has been done is what will

be done,

and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said,

“See, this is new”?

It has been already

in the ages before us.”

What about our guiding principles and documents? Is knowing all the history required to see all the full color of the picture? Let’s use the standards as an example. The beauty of the WCF is that it is a distillation of scripture, not of ideas from a distinct time and culture. (not going to address whether the view of scriptures authority sprung anew in some way during this time). But the questions of the WCF could be asked in any age and would be answered the same. It’s a diamond from within a mountain that would be the same whether dug by a pickaxe or a bulldozer. Does it help to know the original context? Maybe some. I can’t take your whole point away - what confession wasn’t born of an argument or controversy? And knowing the context can help in knowing the counter arguments to them, or why we crafted this statement at all. But what lasts as truth is truth no matter the context. So to the point - why do I think what I do? Believe what I do? Is it because of a sequence of events set off by the loss of a kings head? Maybe some, but what else. Is it better explained by enduring truths about human nature and an author of history who does indeed stand above it, and who makes the story more complicated than we can comprehend?

I now have a desire to learn history not born of the failed attempts of the education system to secure a few dates and names within my feeble dome, but to look at how each of those figures responded to their current situation and say, ha, yeah that was predictable. My opinion is that it’s the people who rely too much on the context- who lionize those puritans and seek to emulate and perpetuate their history - that tend to want to take the bus in the wrong direction.

People are always the same, there’s nothing new, and I comfortably hold my boredom with British squabbles 400 or so years ago. Can I enjoy the Black Keys - a product of long musical history - without needing to trace it back to the lute?

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts