Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
The topic of the day is, what is life, what's living and what's not?
This is a topic, of importance philosophically, biologically, and even in computer science (Artificial Intelligence). I thought about this for some time, and I got the following candidates:
1) A thinking being is a living being.
2) A bunch of chemical reactions in a body, make it (by definition) a living being.
3) A creature with living and reproducing instincts, is a living being.
I thought about the first one for sometime, and it is very satisfying to accept it, as we, humans are thinking beings, and we regard ourselves as the "top of the progress", of the species evolution. Naturally, we would say, all beings evolved from brain-less to humans, so, a creature must have a brain, and humans are higher/better creatures since, we have brains.
But, this argument is not that convincing, if you look close. Dinosaurs, lived happily, for millions of years, even though their brains are of the size of a peanut (Don't believe the drama in Jurassic park, where Dino looks through the glass, twists the door-nob etc..., all without much acquiantence with them. I bet even our ancestor humans could not do that). And, many primitive organisms do not have any thinking unit, like no brain. Also, humans are able to outlive their critical period (you are into space now, if earth burns, lets go to moon), but, what if humans are not able to do so? If a big meteore had hit us, in 17th century, we would have vanished like Dinos. Let's say tomorrow, something un-containable happens to Earth, the species evolution might take an entirely different turn, than the "big brains" slogan. My point is that, evolution is not "progressing towards more brains", humans having brains is just like, dinos having big bodies. It helps to survive, that's all.
So after thinking that "thinking is not the one to think about" :-), we move ahead to the second one. This is more of a definition out of a theory book, in the sense, all cryptic stuff, nothing helps anyone to understand. Ok, but, let us see, what this offers us. "A bunch of chemical reactions....", I would say no. The best counter-example for this, is a virus. A virus, is it a living organism? People say yes, right. But, you know what that foul creature does?
If we go by this definition, viruses have the option of "suddenly starting to live", and to "die suddenly", not joking. A virus, by itself, does not do any 'bunch of chemical reactions...', it is just like a stone on Mars. The moment it finds a body that already does these, it attaches to it, and starts the 'chemical reactions'. And that is not all, after that body is savaged, it again returns to the 'stone on the Mars' look. So, is virus living or not? Well, it is somewhat in between... I am never a fan of such life-less definitions :-) myself, and, looks like this is a bad definition anyway.
Now comes the third one: 'Instinct means life', kind of definition. I actually, took a lot of time, to get to formulate this definition itself, and it looked so fundamental a statement, and it looked more and more profound, as I looked deeper into it. And, along with it, I think I discovered the meaning of evolution.
Darwin's theory is about "survival of the fittest, by natural selection". Let's focus on the 'survival of the fittest' part. The assumption here, is that, there is a population (of one species), with natural genetic variety, and nature randomly conducts a test on them, like a running race. Everybody runs, but 0nly some survive. And their genetic variety, moves ahead, and waits for the next test conducted by nature, at some random time in future.
I emboldened Everybody, in the previous paragraph. That is the underlying assumption in Darwin's theory. Let us understand this. Let's say, there is a population of humans, most of them short. Only some are tall. Then, there comes a huge flood, which submerges their habitat. The short fellows, can't survive (can't get their head up, lets say), even though they stand and try things like crazy. The tall fellows, also try to stand, and can breathe in the floods, which keep up for a week or so. Now, who survives, only the tall folks.
Let's say now that, the tall folks didn't want to survive, they didn't run the race. They just sat under trees, and waited till their lives are taken away by the flood. Now, who survives, no one, right. That is the point here. Everybody runs the race for their lives, when natures gives them a race to run. And, that is the assumption (most probably) in Darwin's theory. And that explains that, all creatures, along the way of evolution, had the instinct to survive, right from the protozoans, amoebas everything. Because, even if the first uni-cellular organism, did not try to survive, the evolution would not have moved an inch.
That clarifies our first presumption, that a creature needs to have 'the instinct to survive', in order to be living (more-or-less).
There is a small problem with this, which is, for evolution, we need this instinct, not for survival. So, if a species does not have this instinct, it is fine for that species, but no progress happens from that species (no evolution). Almost, there is no such thing, as a non-evolving-species in the world, anyway.
The second instinct, to reproduce, what about that? Is that necessary? Given that the life of a creature can be terminated (first instinct would not be possible without it), and given one population of one species always has finite genetic variety, it is not good for evolution, if all these things die, or they allow only 2-3 'natural selection' running races, since, only finite types of genetic variety exists, in the population. Instead, it is better, if the genetic variety has a way of changing, it helps nature to select using many types of races. If all these creatures reproduce, and generate a different group of genetic variety, that is good for evolution, in 2 ways. First, the first instinct is enforceable. Second, the genetic variety changes from generations to generations, enabling nature to conduct new types of tests on the species, which in turn, could cause new paths for evolution.
Thus, we conclude that the second instinct is also necessary for evolution. Looks like, this is the most fundamental thing, for a living creature. Any living creature (from which evolution is possible), needs to have the 'instinct to survive' and the 'instinct to reproduce'.
One might argue that, some creatures like Sheep, do not have the instinct to survive. One might say that, sheep, do follow the butcher, even if it sees the sheep before it, being killed by guillotine. Thus, one might say, it does not yield for it's life. But, that conclusion is wrong.
Sheep, cannot connect between the one before it, walking up to the guillotine, and its head getting chopped off. It's brain is not that great. It walks like a 3 year old, doing stuff, even after you warning him/her, it just can't connect the reason and effect, that's all. If you give it a near death experience with the guillotine, and do not actually kill it, the next time (or after several such attempts (on several such generations)), it develops the instinct to avoid guillotine. That's the beauty of instinct, you don't need to think.
Although, I want to mention one small counter-example to even this 'instinct is life' argument. There is some rodent species, which multiply like crazy. And, one fine day, they start their journey to the sea. This happens every year and, on the way, many of these get crushed by moving vehicles, some of them fall prey to predators etc... But, they continue their journey to the seas. And, what do they do, when they reach the shores? They jump into the sea, and die, not joking. And, this happens year by year, generations by generations, no change. That's the closest counter-example to this theory.
However, it is a very accurate commentary on the theory of evolution. I was delighted to find the roots of Darwin, who found the roots of mine.
This is a topic, of importance philosophically, biologically, and even in computer science (Artificial Intelligence). I thought about this for some time, and I got the following candidates:
1) A thinking being is a living being.
2) A bunch of chemical reactions in a body, make it (by definition) a living being.
3) A creature with living and reproducing instincts, is a living being.
I thought about the first one for sometime, and it is very satisfying to accept it, as we, humans are thinking beings, and we regard ourselves as the "top of the progress", of the species evolution. Naturally, we would say, all beings evolved from brain-less to humans, so, a creature must have a brain, and humans are higher/better creatures since, we have brains.
But, this argument is not that convincing, if you look close. Dinosaurs, lived happily, for millions of years, even though their brains are of the size of a peanut (Don't believe the drama in Jurassic park, where Dino looks through the glass, twists the door-nob etc..., all without much acquiantence with them. I bet even our ancestor humans could not do that). And, many primitive organisms do not have any thinking unit, like no brain. Also, humans are able to outlive their critical period (you are into space now, if earth burns, lets go to moon), but, what if humans are not able to do so? If a big meteore had hit us, in 17th century, we would have vanished like Dinos. Let's say tomorrow, something un-containable happens to Earth, the species evolution might take an entirely different turn, than the "big brains" slogan. My point is that, evolution is not "progressing towards more brains", humans having brains is just like, dinos having big bodies. It helps to survive, that's all.
So after thinking that "thinking is not the one to think about" :-), we move ahead to the second one. This is more of a definition out of a theory book, in the sense, all cryptic stuff, nothing helps anyone to understand. Ok, but, let us see, what this offers us. "A bunch of chemical reactions....", I would say no. The best counter-example for this, is a virus. A virus, is it a living organism? People say yes, right. But, you know what that foul creature does?
If we go by this definition, viruses have the option of "suddenly starting to live", and to "die suddenly", not joking. A virus, by itself, does not do any 'bunch of chemical reactions...', it is just like a stone on Mars. The moment it finds a body that already does these, it attaches to it, and starts the 'chemical reactions'. And that is not all, after that body is savaged, it again returns to the 'stone on the Mars' look. So, is virus living or not? Well, it is somewhat in between... I am never a fan of such life-less definitions :-) myself, and, looks like this is a bad definition anyway.
Now comes the third one: 'Instinct means life', kind of definition. I actually, took a lot of time, to get to formulate this definition itself, and it looked so fundamental a statement, and it looked more and more profound, as I looked deeper into it. And, along with it, I think I discovered the meaning of evolution.
Darwin's theory is about "survival of the fittest, by natural selection". Let's focus on the 'survival of the fittest' part. The assumption here, is that, there is a population (of one species), with natural genetic variety, and nature randomly conducts a test on them, like a running race. Everybody runs, but 0nly some survive. And their genetic variety, moves ahead, and waits for the next test conducted by nature, at some random time in future.
I emboldened Everybody, in the previous paragraph. That is the underlying assumption in Darwin's theory. Let us understand this. Let's say, there is a population of humans, most of them short. Only some are tall. Then, there comes a huge flood, which submerges their habitat. The short fellows, can't survive (can't get their head up, lets say), even though they stand and try things like crazy. The tall fellows, also try to stand, and can breathe in the floods, which keep up for a week or so. Now, who survives, only the tall folks.
Let's say now that, the tall folks didn't want to survive, they didn't run the race. They just sat under trees, and waited till their lives are taken away by the flood. Now, who survives, no one, right. That is the point here. Everybody runs the race for their lives, when natures gives them a race to run. And, that is the assumption (most probably) in Darwin's theory. And that explains that, all creatures, along the way of evolution, had the instinct to survive, right from the protozoans, amoebas everything. Because, even if the first uni-cellular organism, did not try to survive, the evolution would not have moved an inch.
That clarifies our first presumption, that a creature needs to have 'the instinct to survive', in order to be living (more-or-less).
There is a small problem with this, which is, for evolution, we need this instinct, not for survival. So, if a species does not have this instinct, it is fine for that species, but no progress happens from that species (no evolution). Almost, there is no such thing, as a non-evolving-species in the world, anyway.
The second instinct, to reproduce, what about that? Is that necessary? Given that the life of a creature can be terminated (first instinct would not be possible without it), and given one population of one species always has finite genetic variety, it is not good for evolution, if all these things die, or they allow only 2-3 'natural selection' running races, since, only finite types of genetic variety exists, in the population. Instead, it is better, if the genetic variety has a way of changing, it helps nature to select using many types of races. If all these creatures reproduce, and generate a different group of genetic variety, that is good for evolution, in 2 ways. First, the first instinct is enforceable. Second, the genetic variety changes from generations to generations, enabling nature to conduct new types of tests on the species, which in turn, could cause new paths for evolution.
Thus, we conclude that the second instinct is also necessary for evolution. Looks like, this is the most fundamental thing, for a living creature. Any living creature (from which evolution is possible), needs to have the 'instinct to survive' and the 'instinct to reproduce'.
One might argue that, some creatures like Sheep, do not have the instinct to survive. One might say that, sheep, do follow the butcher, even if it sees the sheep before it, being killed by guillotine. Thus, one might say, it does not yield for it's life. But, that conclusion is wrong.
Sheep, cannot connect between the one before it, walking up to the guillotine, and its head getting chopped off. It's brain is not that great. It walks like a 3 year old, doing stuff, even after you warning him/her, it just can't connect the reason and effect, that's all. If you give it a near death experience with the guillotine, and do not actually kill it, the next time (or after several such attempts (on several such generations)), it develops the instinct to avoid guillotine. That's the beauty of instinct, you don't need to think.
Although, I want to mention one small counter-example to even this 'instinct is life' argument. There is some rodent species, which multiply like crazy. And, one fine day, they start their journey to the sea. This happens every year and, on the way, many of these get crushed by moving vehicles, some of them fall prey to predators etc... But, they continue their journey to the seas. And, what do they do, when they reach the shores? They jump into the sea, and die, not joking. And, this happens year by year, generations by generations, no change. That's the closest counter-example to this theory.
However, it is a very accurate commentary on the theory of evolution. I was delighted to find the roots of Darwin, who found the roots of mine.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
I watched Kingdom of Heaven recently. I was very charmed by the movie, actually. Infact, I liked the Salahuddin character so much in that movie, that, I decided to keep it in my blog name.
I liked the movie, (I generally have a penchant for History based flicks), and the realistic way, they tried to show the history. The people's attire in Jerusalem, in Medieval times, how 'holy wars' transmogrify into 'mercenary factories', the way arabs walk, the 'humanity of Christianity', the 'moroccan kind of music', everything.
And, coming to talk about History, I realized how much distorted it can be portrayed as, sometime ago (not with this movie, anyway. My fasicnation with the history movies, does not seem to wane, even with ordinary history flicks). I realized the vagaries called the 'history stories'.
All of you know that the great greek warrior, Alexander the Great, halted his campaign, in India. (If you don't) basically, due to some reason, Alexander called it done, while campaigning in India. And both sides, the west and India, do quite flowery commentary on this. I thought the Indian version is authentic, until, I saw the movie made by Hollywood folks, about Alexander.
First, anyway, is the Indian version (it is not my version, at all). There are actually 2-3 versions doing the rounds, and it depends, your level of excitement about your homeland (in general, not just Indian version).
Alexander, entered India, and an Emperor (of India), on Alexander's path, preferred not to fight with him. He gave great gifts to the warrior, to pacify him and show his loyalty. But, there is a very small King, beside his land, who decided to fight Alexander. And that king, had an army of only 500 warriors, and a small Castle. With valor filled in their hearts, all of them fight Alexander for 45 days. Finally, the small King (named Purushottam), loses to Alexander. The king, does not submit himself, whatever Alexander does, and prefers death.
Alexander does not kill him. He learns his lesson. Valor/Dignity of a Warrior can't be defeated, though, you defeat people and Kingdoms. Recognizing this King, as a better Warrior/Ruler than himself, he turns back, to go back to Rome. On his way back, he dies in vain (I think the death is meant to show his guilt).
Sure does make a great story, and rises the heads of every Indian. God knows how much is true, in here.
Now, comes the western version. The Alexander movie, talks about Alexander starting his campaign, with only 10000 warriors. So, Alex did not start with a great Army, and after all, by the time he defeated Persian Empire, and crossed the mighty Himalayas, his numbers could have eroded like crazy. So, in comparison, 500 warriors of an Indian King, does not look so bad. However, is 10K the right number? We might have to adjust that too, but let's do it later, if needed.
Alex comes to India, despite resistence from his army, about crossing the mighty Himalayas. He gives a good speech that motivates them to venture into the hitherto, unknown territory, past Himalayas. They get into India, suffering many casulaties, while crossing the mountains.
And, ka boom, Indians fight "guerilla wars". The fatigued army will be slain, in a non Man-to-Man fashion, by the tribal Indian savages. It is definitely not something that the warrior likes. He decides to abandon his quest, and not fight this "monkey tribe". He loses his best friend, in these "tribal ambushes", and on the way back, dies because he loved his friend, who died an unholy death.
Great again, isn't it. The west does not acknowledge any oriental civilization, and, they need glory too, like us. It sure helps every western man to believe in what he wants, and keeps their heads above the rest.
But, everyone can have their pride, until they meet each other, this way :-). But, wait a minute, what is the truth? Is India, a total "Monkey tribe", at that time. May be yes, may be no. Is Alexander, died due to an unholy death of his friend? May be yes, may be no. Is the existence of King Purushottam real? May be yes, may be no. I realized that, the truth is somewhere in between the two.
If you see, today's newspaper, some of them write 'in favor of' ruling, and some write 'in favor of' the opposition. And, the truth is somewhere, in between (All of us, know that). I took that analogy, to intrapolate, yesterday's history. After this, there are some things, which looked practical to me, rather than the flowery descriptions of the historians.
Alex might have started with 10K or may be, 20K warriors. After defeating the Byzantines, and Persians, he must have got down 1K or even fewer numbers, may be even 500 dilapidated warriors. Indian King named Purushottam, existed, and he fought a level battle with Alex, not a lopsided one. And, that guy got defeated to Alex.
Alex, due to his dwindling numbers, took a logistical decision to get back home. On the way back, he got a fever, due to the sea journey, and died. There is nothing to feel great about, for either the Indians or for the west here.
History, is same as today, with similar people around. Expecting the past to be drastically different from our present, is just like expecting a goat out of a chicken egg. The need to have glorious history, is to motivate patriotism, and unity, that is needed for the rulers to have armies, and orderly people. Rulers enforced great history, and encouraged story writers to write good about them and ancestors. King is always good, in the history, unless his and his descendants' reign is over.
What more, there is an even more flowery version, doing the rounds in India about Alex's departure. According to this version, Alex had a wife, who is travelling with him, on his campaign. (She might be a Persian princess grabbed by Alex on the way, may be. She may not be his queen). And, after the fierce battle that is happening between Alex and Puru, she feared the death of her husband, in the hands of the Indian warrior.
So, one night, she got out of her camp, and approached Puru, in his camp. She tied a Rakhi to his arm (Rakshabandhan, which is Indian ladies' oath taking from Brothers', asking their protection), and asked him not to harm her sindhur (husband). And thus, the warrior King of India, to uphold the promise made to her, voluntarily surrendered to Alex. Also, one of the days in the battle, happened to be Rakshabandhan day.
What say folks? Too much spicy, huh? Yes, that is right. It is very spicy, dramatic, makes a good stoy, or even a movie. Not history.
We see anachronisms everywhere in the history movies. Not the obvious ones, but more subtle ones. Things like, the King asking people to fight for their families, and not for the city walls. He asks them to protect their families, rather than the priests and cathedrals of the city. When are we talking this, 1500-1600 ish, definitely, pre-renaissance.
And, everyone knows what is important to the west, before renaissance, self or the church? Right. Always some contemporary idealism's spice is thrown into narrations of history, just to make it more dramatic and appealing. People talk socilaist, in Indian movies of 50s-70s, and it is quite common to talk about 'Dignity of labor' etc... in those movies. Now, there is no such thing, in Indian cinemas. Guess why, no-ones takes socialism seriously in India, now anyway.
So, if you want to make a story about a medieval King, who sent 100 youngsters as slaves to the rival King, just to ensure his town's priest is freed, think again. Contemporary ideals, do not allow it. If you want to make a story about, a king, who romanced countless many women, think again, contemporary ideals do not allow it. If you want to write about Socialism, as panacea to the world's problems in your story, think again, contemporary social-economic ideals do not allow that.
Conclusion, history is much more dependent on the contemporary context, and not simply independent. Next time you read history, try to tone it down to be within practical ranges. Stories are one, and history is another, if you see it.
I liked the movie, (I generally have a penchant for History based flicks), and the realistic way, they tried to show the history. The people's attire in Jerusalem, in Medieval times, how 'holy wars' transmogrify into 'mercenary factories', the way arabs walk, the 'humanity of Christianity', the 'moroccan kind of music', everything.
And, coming to talk about History, I realized how much distorted it can be portrayed as, sometime ago (not with this movie, anyway. My fasicnation with the history movies, does not seem to wane, even with ordinary history flicks). I realized the vagaries called the 'history stories'.
All of you know that the great greek warrior, Alexander the Great, halted his campaign, in India. (If you don't) basically, due to some reason, Alexander called it done, while campaigning in India. And both sides, the west and India, do quite flowery commentary on this. I thought the Indian version is authentic, until, I saw the movie made by Hollywood folks, about Alexander.
First, anyway, is the Indian version (it is not my version, at all). There are actually 2-3 versions doing the rounds, and it depends, your level of excitement about your homeland (in general, not just Indian version).
Alexander, entered India, and an Emperor (of India), on Alexander's path, preferred not to fight with him. He gave great gifts to the warrior, to pacify him and show his loyalty. But, there is a very small King, beside his land, who decided to fight Alexander. And that king, had an army of only 500 warriors, and a small Castle. With valor filled in their hearts, all of them fight Alexander for 45 days. Finally, the small King (named Purushottam), loses to Alexander. The king, does not submit himself, whatever Alexander does, and prefers death.
Alexander does not kill him. He learns his lesson. Valor/Dignity of a Warrior can't be defeated, though, you defeat people and Kingdoms. Recognizing this King, as a better Warrior/Ruler than himself, he turns back, to go back to Rome. On his way back, he dies in vain (I think the death is meant to show his guilt).
Sure does make a great story, and rises the heads of every Indian. God knows how much is true, in here.
Now, comes the western version. The Alexander movie, talks about Alexander starting his campaign, with only 10000 warriors. So, Alex did not start with a great Army, and after all, by the time he defeated Persian Empire, and crossed the mighty Himalayas, his numbers could have eroded like crazy. So, in comparison, 500 warriors of an Indian King, does not look so bad. However, is 10K the right number? We might have to adjust that too, but let's do it later, if needed.
Alex comes to India, despite resistence from his army, about crossing the mighty Himalayas. He gives a good speech that motivates them to venture into the hitherto, unknown territory, past Himalayas. They get into India, suffering many casulaties, while crossing the mountains.
And, ka boom, Indians fight "guerilla wars". The fatigued army will be slain, in a non Man-to-Man fashion, by the tribal Indian savages. It is definitely not something that the warrior likes. He decides to abandon his quest, and not fight this "monkey tribe". He loses his best friend, in these "tribal ambushes", and on the way back, dies because he loved his friend, who died an unholy death.
Great again, isn't it. The west does not acknowledge any oriental civilization, and, they need glory too, like us. It sure helps every western man to believe in what he wants, and keeps their heads above the rest.
But, everyone can have their pride, until they meet each other, this way :-). But, wait a minute, what is the truth? Is India, a total "Monkey tribe", at that time. May be yes, may be no. Is Alexander, died due to an unholy death of his friend? May be yes, may be no. Is the existence of King Purushottam real? May be yes, may be no. I realized that, the truth is somewhere in between the two.
If you see, today's newspaper, some of them write 'in favor of' ruling, and some write 'in favor of' the opposition. And, the truth is somewhere, in between (All of us, know that). I took that analogy, to intrapolate, yesterday's history. After this, there are some things, which looked practical to me, rather than the flowery descriptions of the historians.
Alex might have started with 10K or may be, 20K warriors. After defeating the Byzantines, and Persians, he must have got down 1K or even fewer numbers, may be even 500 dilapidated warriors. Indian King named Purushottam, existed, and he fought a level battle with Alex, not a lopsided one. And, that guy got defeated to Alex.
Alex, due to his dwindling numbers, took a logistical decision to get back home. On the way back, he got a fever, due to the sea journey, and died. There is nothing to feel great about, for either the Indians or for the west here.
History, is same as today, with similar people around. Expecting the past to be drastically different from our present, is just like expecting a goat out of a chicken egg. The need to have glorious history, is to motivate patriotism, and unity, that is needed for the rulers to have armies, and orderly people. Rulers enforced great history, and encouraged story writers to write good about them and ancestors. King is always good, in the history, unless his and his descendants' reign is over.
What more, there is an even more flowery version, doing the rounds in India about Alex's departure. According to this version, Alex had a wife, who is travelling with him, on his campaign. (She might be a Persian princess grabbed by Alex on the way, may be. She may not be his queen). And, after the fierce battle that is happening between Alex and Puru, she feared the death of her husband, in the hands of the Indian warrior.
So, one night, she got out of her camp, and approached Puru, in his camp. She tied a Rakhi to his arm (Rakshabandhan, which is Indian ladies' oath taking from Brothers', asking their protection), and asked him not to harm her sindhur (husband). And thus, the warrior King of India, to uphold the promise made to her, voluntarily surrendered to Alex. Also, one of the days in the battle, happened to be Rakshabandhan day.
What say folks? Too much spicy, huh? Yes, that is right. It is very spicy, dramatic, makes a good stoy, or even a movie. Not history.
We see anachronisms everywhere in the history movies. Not the obvious ones, but more subtle ones. Things like, the King asking people to fight for their families, and not for the city walls. He asks them to protect their families, rather than the priests and cathedrals of the city. When are we talking this, 1500-1600 ish, definitely, pre-renaissance.
And, everyone knows what is important to the west, before renaissance, self or the church? Right. Always some contemporary idealism's spice is thrown into narrations of history, just to make it more dramatic and appealing. People talk socilaist, in Indian movies of 50s-70s, and it is quite common to talk about 'Dignity of labor' etc... in those movies. Now, there is no such thing, in Indian cinemas. Guess why, no-ones takes socialism seriously in India, now anyway.
So, if you want to make a story about a medieval King, who sent 100 youngsters as slaves to the rival King, just to ensure his town's priest is freed, think again. Contemporary ideals, do not allow it. If you want to make a story about, a king, who romanced countless many women, think again, contemporary ideals do not allow it. If you want to write about Socialism, as panacea to the world's problems in your story, think again, contemporary social-economic ideals do not allow that.
Conclusion, history is much more dependent on the contemporary context, and not simply independent. Next time you read history, try to tone it down to be within practical ranges. Stories are one, and history is another, if you see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)