It is said that the history is always written by the victors. I kinda disagree on that for many reasons. Sure, journalism as in modern world is more sophisticated than ancient times but recording of an event, however exaggerated is mostly limited by the acceptance of the said story. Let me explain. See, we have comics all around right and we also have television shows and some party/fun events. Suppose tomorrow, there was a mushroom cloud lined with barium and was powerful enough to decimate human life as we know it. By sheer luck, suppose the only book/film that survived was a ten year old's iPhone. The humanity that recovers from those ashes might be teens in all probability. Now, with their limited knowledge of the world that existed before them and all the evidence they could gather, they might start a cult that speaks of superman for instance. This seed, supported by several archaeological diggings recovering books or film may start a belief that superman could really exist.
After all movies are shot on sets and over time sets may inspire buildings in turn. This may lead to a natural instinct of a possibility of superman. This would continue until people continue to feel superman as an existing entity. His backstory is perfect and would be unquestionable in that future. Even though different editions contradict each other, they could be called as doctrines and perspectives. Any discrepancy could be snubbed while it is budding and they wouldn't know anything about what's true. My question is who's the victor? I mean, it would have become history (a comic history but for them, no difference) and by chance, if they ever recover Henry Cavill or Brandon Routh in bones (or by cloning), it would become undeniable fact. It might sound vague but added enough information and convenience that could occur triggered by a disaster, (just like we rose from dinosaurs) we could imagine a scenario where in superman could be accepted as a literal God who once walked on earth (not that there are no people living now, who actually think that but you get the point).
Moving on, let's go to a place where Gandhi is just a guy on a currency note and that's all is left of him. There is no physical evidence to support Gandhi because frankly more people know superman than Gandhi. Also, there are continuously generated comics of superman and not so competitively for Gandhi. This creates a divide. What's not to say that Gandhi is just a figment of imagination like Uncle Sam? Future people may find it strange that one normal human was able to defeat many without proclaiming blood lust ( and true to myself, I think Netaji played a greater role than Gandhi). Since the England is still ruled by a Queen, it still maintains a decree of royalty. That alone might set off alarms as England being innocent and Indians being arrogant. I mean, USSR became Russia, didn't it? In this world, how would people know which one is true and which one is false.
The answer is strictly, not possible. There is no individual Nexus point where people can agree on. If evidence is the only criteria, one should be ready to understand that the evidence can lie. If there is no way of testing it, probably other opinions do matter. I know that taking evidence is the closest way to approach an unknown but then again, falsifiable doesn't mean false and neither is the corollary or contrapositive.
There are somethings beyond comprehension. People from 18th century wouldn't probably know the importance of digital assistance because they do have a personal assistance with a human. Today we wouldn't believe that there was a civilization that foresaw eclipses more accurately with almost zero equipment when even with satellites surrounding the planet, we still have a decidable error margin. Perhaps technology existed before and got destroyed. It may not be true but how much of human history have we known, since its inception (not the movie). There are still a lot of blanks to be filled in and we will debate on some parts and agree on others. This is not because who wrote the history but how it is interpreted and by whom. It's no one to blame except for the guy who first blasted the mushroom cloud I was talking about.
Horopter
After all movies are shot on sets and over time sets may inspire buildings in turn. This may lead to a natural instinct of a possibility of superman. This would continue until people continue to feel superman as an existing entity. His backstory is perfect and would be unquestionable in that future. Even though different editions contradict each other, they could be called as doctrines and perspectives. Any discrepancy could be snubbed while it is budding and they wouldn't know anything about what's true. My question is who's the victor? I mean, it would have become history (a comic history but for them, no difference) and by chance, if they ever recover Henry Cavill or Brandon Routh in bones (or by cloning), it would become undeniable fact. It might sound vague but added enough information and convenience that could occur triggered by a disaster, (just like we rose from dinosaurs) we could imagine a scenario where in superman could be accepted as a literal God who once walked on earth (not that there are no people living now, who actually think that but you get the point).
Moving on, let's go to a place where Gandhi is just a guy on a currency note and that's all is left of him. There is no physical evidence to support Gandhi because frankly more people know superman than Gandhi. Also, there are continuously generated comics of superman and not so competitively for Gandhi. This creates a divide. What's not to say that Gandhi is just a figment of imagination like Uncle Sam? Future people may find it strange that one normal human was able to defeat many without proclaiming blood lust ( and true to myself, I think Netaji played a greater role than Gandhi). Since the England is still ruled by a Queen, it still maintains a decree of royalty. That alone might set off alarms as England being innocent and Indians being arrogant. I mean, USSR became Russia, didn't it? In this world, how would people know which one is true and which one is false.
The answer is strictly, not possible. There is no individual Nexus point where people can agree on. If evidence is the only criteria, one should be ready to understand that the evidence can lie. If there is no way of testing it, probably other opinions do matter. I know that taking evidence is the closest way to approach an unknown but then again, falsifiable doesn't mean false and neither is the corollary or contrapositive.
There are somethings beyond comprehension. People from 18th century wouldn't probably know the importance of digital assistance because they do have a personal assistance with a human. Today we wouldn't believe that there was a civilization that foresaw eclipses more accurately with almost zero equipment when even with satellites surrounding the planet, we still have a decidable error margin. Perhaps technology existed before and got destroyed. It may not be true but how much of human history have we known, since its inception (not the movie). There are still a lot of blanks to be filled in and we will debate on some parts and agree on others. This is not because who wrote the history but how it is interpreted and by whom. It's no one to blame except for the guy who first blasted the mushroom cloud I was talking about.
Horopter
No comments:
Post a Comment