History of knowledge
A while back, obtaining “A History of Knowledge,” a discarded 1991 book by one of our county libraries; I thought perhaps the reading would enlighten me a bit. Obviously, in those cognizant years that you have lived and experienced, you have no need for reiteration of that portion of history of which you are a product. You lived in it and through it as you are doing now. You are aware of it and know it. However, we have need of history in its entirety.
Halfway through the history volume, I decided to check on the author. What I learned was that he was involved in a TV quiz show scandal. In approximately two and a half months, he received today’s equivalent of over one million dollars. He accepted correct answers to questions from the producers of the show whose intent was to unseat the long-standing incumbent and raise ratings.
His complicity in such dishonesty and deception prompted me to stop reading said book. For, how is one to believe all the informative facts put forth in the writing? Alas, already done with 50 percent of the 400-odd pages, I continued until the end.
The Greek historian, Plutarch, stated, “So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history, when, on the one hand, those who afterwards write it find long periods of time intercepting their views, and, on the other hand, the contemporary records of any actions and lives, partly through envy and ill-will, partly through favor and flattery, pervert and distort truth.” History is sometimes written wrong, and so sometimes needs to be rewritten. However, the rewriting should not accommodate or conform to our soothing comfort and suitable convenience.
A case in point is the author’s assigned and credited invention of movable metal type to Gutenberg around 1450 A.D. When in fact the invention preceded Gutenberg by two centuries and credit may go to Choe Yun-ui in 1234 of the Goryeo Kingdom of Korea. I suppose forgiveness may be in order as the work’s emphasis was upon western civilization. Yet, I would query, should not intellectual history comprehend all history and embrace all civilizations? Of course, a work of that nature would be voluminous.
For the most part, what I gleaned from the reading was a very depressive story of mankind in ignorance and greed and consistently if not continuously at war. Almost every great idea that occurred was abused and almost every great invention that came along was misused. As a historian, Voltaire’s view was that “history is but the register of human crimes and misfortunes.”
In spite of the author’s injected opinions, he brought to light some judgments and expressed them uniquely. For example, “Every man understands words in a slightly different way from every other, which leads to distortions and flaws in knowledge.” Also his Socratic questioning: “Does advancing knowledge always come at a high price?” Furthermore, “All serious history is economic history.”