Collective memory, as Halbwachs would have it, is like the shared pool of information and experiences held by a group of people. This collective memory is essential for maintaining cultural continuity across generations. When a community loses touch with its history, it risks losing the cohesion that binds its members together, which can lead to a sort of cultural amnesia. This concept isn’t just for nations; it applies to any group with a shared identity, including religious communities, ethnic groups, and even professional organizations.-
For example, indigenous communities often emphasize the importance of oral histories and traditions because these narratives carry the accumulated wisdom and identity of their people. If these stories are lost, so too is a sense of who they are as a distinct group.-
An understanding of history also allows a community to make informed decisions about the future. When people understand the causes and consequences of past events, they are better equipped to navigate present challenges. Santayana's quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," might sound like a cliché, but it's rooted in the idea that historical awareness helps societies avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. The European Union, for instance, was built on the memory of two world wars, which profoundly influenced its emphasis on cooperation and integration to prevent similar outcomes. Notwithstanding this whole mess in Ukraine ...
> When people understand the causes and consequences of past events, they are better equipped to navigate present challenges
To a small degree. Most of this boils down to the bleeding obvious, like "avoid war when you can because it's hideously expensive", treat people with decency etc. is there really much more to it than that?
And you talk about cultural continuity – some of these continuities are not good, q.v. the Taliban. Also cultures change very rapidly – the kind of homophobia that was acceptable or even encouraged when I was a kid is now seen very much as a serious transgression or crime (speaking as a straight bloke, I'm glad it; I'm very glad things have changed). We haven't achieved gender parity in pay, we getting there. You can't stick your hands all over a woman as you could in the 60s and expect to get away with it (ditto good).
Well I don't know. I can't say I'm convinced by what you've written but I appreciate the answer anyway. Thanks.
Indeed. Good point. As you well point out, in this case the past determines an outcome for the worse ...
PS. That said - I found interesting how, in a recent "live from a Taliban courtroom" video, the Sharia judge made a point along the lines of "We are lucky these aren't medieval times anymore and we have Sharia law with us ..."
They considered themselves an advance upon a certain past. Progress.-
(then again, I also find it worth learning how things are done in other countries, so I believe both the Durants' statement and your proposed riposte may be true at the same time)
[as for the truth: from a DBMS' WAL (the past) one may always reconstruct its tables, but for queries it's more convenient to always have them materialised (the present); does that make sense?]
For whatever it might be worth, I'd also tend to agree - they are not incompatible notions ...