In chapter III of Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell describes Winston’s thoughts on the recording of history, which casts me back to my days as a history undergraduate. In the same way that Winston has no idea if the year is indeed 1984 or not, the only reason that I know my degree is as recent as two years ago is that we record time everywhere. My days as a history student in York seem to be an aeon ago.
In this passage, George Orwell picks up on something which I find to be strikingly true about the study of history. He says:
For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory?
This is a potent question. How can you?
This point, put in the succinct style which Orwell remains so famous for, can be demonstrated with plenty of commonly-heard examples. For instance, The Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 witnessed Henry VII take the crown from Richard III – but where exactly is Bosworth field? This is much disputed, because nobody ventured to record and re-record the exact mark of its location.
To go further back, The Hanging Gardens of Babylon – which sound like a quite breathtaking construction. But where exactly were they located? Not a trace remains, to the point that historians can question their existence.
Of course, one can’t trust any record of history which is written down – many records are contradictory. The problem is that the memory truly cannot be trusted.
How many times have you been sure that something has happened, and yet it has been proved not to have done? (Contrast your memory of certain goals in football games with the reality, viewed again on a replay years later).
Meanwhile, imagine if Watergate had been successfully covered up. It may never have happened according to the pages of history. It would have died with the memories of its culprits. No doubt plenty of conspiracy theories which exist are, against heavy odds, actually true. I often think that Watergate might have become a conspiracy theory had the right people been silenced. With no cemented evidence, it is quite possible that something which happened did not, in fact, happen.
This is the fragile nature of history, and is exactly why a tyrannical regime like Nineteen Eighty-Four’s Party could easily master it and use it as a form of social control.
Just a thought, which ultimately leads to my wider belief in solipsism. What can you actually prove?
I thought that the site of Bosworth field had been found. I read an article in the times last week that says the site is aboout 2 miles away from the visitors site for the battlefield.
Quite possibly. Maybe there are better examples.
Here’s the Wikipedia section on the location of the Battlefield, at least indicating disagreement for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bosworth_Field#Battlefield
[I can always rely on you to correct my typos or erroneous comments].
I thought this was one of your best pieces, it’s really made me think and gets me back to my philosophical days. Plus it’s clear and well written. I apologise in advance for my not so clear and well written thoughts.
What first struck me was the truth of what was being argued, as how can we know what is beyond our own thoughts and feelings. Everything else could be an illusion and well what other’s think is a well known philosophical and social minefield and we all regularly get it wrong! However, I thought, it appears too easy an argument, one which is hard to escape from, ‘I think therefore I am’ well yes I know my own thoughts so I suppose I exist, do I know that my body exists in the same way, Descartes says no probably not, but I have a intuitive feeling it does exist along with a concrete reality out there, of places, people and the events that occur, is this not the same as the intuitive feeling I have that I exist because of my thoughts?
How I feel is that if you argue for Sophism yes you know you have a mind – in a sense – but do you? – what makes this reality any greater than any other? What makes my knowledge of my own mind any greater than the knowledge that the reality around me exists? I suppose there are two arguments here solipsism – or a debate between idealism and realism and then the idea that if a separate reality does exist out there – can we access it in anyway – that is not entirely viewed by our own mind and perceptions?- therefore even if a reality exists – the true nature of it – may be beyond us? However, much our minds may limit us, surely glimpses of that reality and the reality of others can be shown to us? For if we don’t share anything or know truly of anything, this leaves quite a sad tale?- one which yes cannot be proved, but one which is a lonely existence?
There is always the argument that history or reality is only that viewed by others, but why even if this is the case, does it have to be a bad thing, because if it is the case, then surely this is the events and reality that we as human share – one of many realities or versions history and therefore speaks the only truth we have access to – then is it not truth? I suppose there is the assumption there can only be one truth – rather than many? It does concur though with the fragile nature of history and the present – whether a nineteen ninety four scenario could occur so easily in a society – is something I’m not sure about?….I’l have a ponder! – you never we might be living in one now!
There is also the thought that surely through the reality of others and the world around us, our own reality gets effected and shapes our minds that we believe to be true- how can something that exists – be effective and actually shaped by something that is not real or exists?
I may be confused …not sure… probably am …:>
Thank you for the comment. It’s nice that you’d say those things – it’s always good to remember this for when I’m going through a phase where I think I should get rid of the blog. I actually thought that this post was not as clear as I’d hoped, but posted it anyway. You’ve responded with a comment which seems more thought provoking than my initial post.
I think you might be right to question whether you can even know you have a mind. It is conceivable that you’re just a thing which experiences any emotions fed into you, without the ability to really think for yourself or choose any different.
Yes, solipsism seems like an easy argument. The problem is, it cannot be disproven. It begs the question, “Why be good?”. I would argue that the answer is this: if the chances of life being non-solipsistic are one in a million, and you do things that will really hurt other people’s feelings, then you will still have completed an action which may have profoundly upset the existence of another being such as yourself. It’s very unlikely, but quite possible, and something which must be accepted before acting in a way which may affect others. Arguing that life is probably solipsistic is a weak defence of acting contrary to ethics, even if the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of other people not existing.
Maybe that makes no sense, but I tried to respond to a couple of your really insightful philosophical points.