Monday, May 12, 2008
Question 1
In chapter 1 (p. 12-14) Taleb talks about how the diary was the most influential book for him philosophically--“a training program in the dynamics of uncertainty”. He realized that there was a difference between the before and after in recounting history, and he warned of the ‘narrative fallacy’ (p. 62ff.) Why is it that a diary is far more accurate in depicting history (or is it)? Is history lost in the recounting of it? Or by summarizing it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Taleb pointed out that you're not automatically putting the pieces together to assume causation when you are living something. I don't know if that makes diaries more accurate or just more personal. I think there is a lot more to be learned in looking at history with the big picture (or as much as we can see) in mind. At the same time, he makes a good point that we need to realize that we shouldn't be able to identify the cause of every nuance of history.
I think you are right. The big-picture approach has been the one historians have used to explain the world. It is a more modern trend now to look at history in details and try to make connections that way. Like with new-historicism - What we learn is on the micro level, not the macro.
Post a Comment