History is and always has been a major part of Philosophy, but in modern times is often lost in the epistomologic shuffle and scientific super-focusing of our age. Any consistent philosophy of life must include knowledge of history and its modern impacts.

History, at its simplest is just the record of the past as remembered by those who cared. Humans being humans, however, we have never been content with just the record, rather we want to know not just What happened, but Why it happened and if there is any meaning to the record. That coupled with the demanded selectivity ( after all, if we studied complete history, we would never have time to do anything else) has led history to take on different flavors depending on the principal focus of the time.

During Classic and Medieval times, European historians saw history through a primarily religious focus - as the handwork of God and as a record of his works. This viewpoint still extends to our times and is the cause of much political strife.

With the Renaissance, historians began to discuss history from a geographical viewpoint - suggesting that history was driven by the domination of the Northern European peoples from a chillier climate over the browner, more indolent peoples of southern hotter climes. There is a lot of racism in this interpretation but it is still believed by many. They use the "Westernization"of the modern world to prove their claim.

A sort of natural evolution in the the geographic viewpoint was the Racial interpretation of history - the Paler Nordic races have, after all, dominated the world for the past several centuries. Recent world economic changes have caused this attitude to be somewhat less acceptable.

The Economic Interpretation of History is probably the most currently acceptable thanks to the worlds present focus on economic development. Karl Marx, its most expansive spokesman, saw economics as far the most important causal factor in the history of the world - reducing every struggle and triumph to an economic foundation. While Communism may be gone, its founder's ideas are still very much with us.

A more modern interpretation of history might be called the Psychological - our need for heros and the impact of individuals and individual ideas - the exceptional thinking of the exceptional person. History as taught is too often limited to the political and economic. Perhaps a more composite or comprehensive view of the world- past and present - might be what the current world most needs - a view of the totality at a given time - not separating history into political, economic, racial, religious, military, etc. A tall order.

How do you view History? What do you think is the most important historical impact of our time? 

Thanks for the interesting comments on our last posting.

To continue the subject for a bit, let me propose one possible answer as to why the Tsarneav brothers decided to become terrorists.

The older brother seems to have become discouraged and irritated by his life in the US - he certainly made comments about how he had no American friends and did not understand Americans. His younger brother seems to have fit in to American society better, but was apparently much influenced by his  brother. 

This disaffection might well have been caused by his perception of American politics and observation of recent US conflicts with the Islamic world as well as anti-muslim comments in the media. His visits back to Russia apparently left him discouraged about life there also and built in a general dislike for all things non-muslim. Recent US politics certainly do not leave any observer with much of a favorable attitude toward the US. 

The kind of bombs they built did not seem to require much prior training and their "trade craft"was amateurish at best. After their last shoot-out the remaining living brother apparently dropped his weapon and fled to the nearest hiding place.  They apparently had no real plan of what to do after the bombing - except maybe plant another bomb or two.

How could this kind of Amateur terrorist activity be prevented?

The US Attorney for the Boston area has announced that the captured bomber will not be read his "Miranda Rights"until after he has been carefully interrogated by FBI experts. This departure from constitutional rights is allowed in cases of "Immanent threat to national security" according to the Patriot Act.

What should the balance be between guaranteed individual constitutional rights and perceived national security threats? How far should a society go in protecting itself from possible outside threats?

This site started in October 2006. The first discussion was:

Topic 1 
October 10th - 16th, 2005

Welcome to our first discussion on Socrates Cafe®!

Since this is a new blog and blog ring, lacking a membership base, our first question is being provided for us. As membership grows, members will be asked to provide the topic for discussion. As host, it is my responsibility to promote conversation, asking questions in the Socratic manner to promote further thought. For more information about the intent of this forum, please see the ring "Info and FAQ" in the previous post.

Here is our first topic:

What is a just war?

To participate in the forum, respond with your thoughts on this matter in your own blog. Please, let your readers know that you are participating in a discussion on Socrates Cafe by copying and posting the info at the top of your post. Once you've finished, reply here and provide a link. To promote discussion, please visit the replies of others in the spirit of listening and gently asking questions. As you reply that you've posted, I'll provide your link here for easy access.

Nobody seems to be interesting in justifying murder, so here's a completely different topic.

How would you like to be the teacher of these kids?  I had one or two back in the day.

In any event, I'd like your comments:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/03/27/175455214/socrates-in-the-form-of-a-9-year-old-shows-up-in-a-suburban-backyard-in-washingt

On another (closed) site there is a discussion of when killing of humans is acceptable.

Under what conditions would you consider the killing of innocent or non-involved humans acceptable?

Things seem to be getting interesting. The following countries currently have, or are on the brink of having nuclear weapons: US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, and coming on line: Iran and North Korea. The last two or three of those mentioned have been pretty aggressive toward their neighbors.

Under what conditions do you belive a country would be justified in waging nuclear war? Why....or why not?

Politics has been described as the art of making the Institution of Government work - especially in a democracy. A basic political theme seems to be that of compromise between the political representatives in the governing body - usually to keep the government running smoothly and to achieve its responsible goals.

Do you think elected representatives should  vote their political party's beliefs without compromise, or should they first consider their government's responsibilities and ability to perform its responsible goals?  What should happen when these beliefs and goals come into conflict? Should the representatives attempt compromise even when it violates some of their political party's basic agenda and beliefs?

Why, or why not?

I was watching the Sunday Morning Talking Heads and heard Ariana Huffington comment about the problem of "Half the college grads can't find jobs".

I've heard this comment a lot lately and I suppose it's true. The question is why it's true?

Is the problem because of the world-wide economic downturn, or are there just too many college graduates? Many industries and other consumer-driven companies complain about the scarcity of qualified workers - this seems to be true across the board for "middle income"jobs. In short, do we need more lawyers or more mechanics and cooks?

Another problem seems to be the complaint that our universities are turning out graduates unfit for any useful employment - Of what use is a degree in literature, history, or fine arts?

"My country, may she always be right, but my country, right or wrong"

What are your feelings about this statement?