George Santayana is best known as a historian. He’s famous for his observation on the importance of studying history to understand it, and getting it right: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (See citation in right column of the blog.)
Steve Greenberg is a historian cartoonist whose work is published in the Ventura County (California) Star. He offers a Santayana-esque analysis of economics positions of presidential candidates.
Steve Greenberg, published in the Ventura County Star
Click on the thumbnail for a larger version.
Steve Greenberg, Ventura County Star, via Cagle Comics
Greenberg has compressed into 33 words and 5 images a rather complex argument in this year’s presidential campaign.
Is Greenberg right? Do you see why Boss Tweed feared Thomas Nast’s cartoons more than he feared the reporters and editorial writers?
This election campaign we may be able to get the best analysis and commentary from cartoonists. Same as always. Teachers: Are you stockpiling cartoons for use through the year in government, economics, and history?
Other resources:
Note to Cagle cartoons: I think I’m in fair use bounds on this. In any case, I wish you would create an option for bloggers, and an option for teachers who may reuse cartoons year after year. I’ve tried to contact you to secure rights for cartoons in the past, and I don’t get responses. Complain away in comments if you have a complaint, but let us know how we can expose cartoonists to broader audiences and use these materials in our classrooms for less than our entire teacher salary.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
James says:
Ed says:
Yeah, history is what you make it.
James also says:
No, I did not believe that Ed would actually make any correction.
Ed ended up making a case for why Santayana should be considered a historian, even if he wasn’t, so there’s no reason to change the post.
With all the vitriol Ed slings at the people he hates, I’m not sure why he is overreacting so much.
To inspire Ed to read some biographical information about Santayana, and to read the book he quote-mines. I think he has done that now.
And now y’all may return to the argument ad nauseum, which is that Santayana the historian, who wrote lots of aphorisms, wants everyone to study history so they will vote for Democrats. The bottom line, Ed, is that it’s your blog, and you can write whatever you want.
LikeLike
Onkel Bob is right.
Dave said:
I invite you to spend some time reading Herodotus, or maybe better, Plutarch. If you’re not up to slogging through something quite so difficult, get something out of Churchill’s series on A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. You sell Santayana short as a historian, particularly for his elucidation of the motivations of people who do what they do, remember it accurately or misremember it, and why they bother to remember it at all. His quote was directed at a particular writer; it has much broader application. We should use it where it fits, not necessarily where it was first aimed.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” He wouldn’t object if we failed to use it only to slam preachers. History is not just a dogmatic study of facts, nor just a study of old dogmas, but also a living science or art (you choose which) about how to step away from dogma when exigencies require.
If you don’t think Santayana is useful in the study of history, if you don’t think his observations of history are useful outside the academy, ignore him. There are probably a hundred other errors you can make before you get out of the door of the classroom, and we can’t tell which one will be the lost nail in the shoe of the horse at Waterloo.
LikeLike
Pedant:
One who makes a show of knowledge,
One who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge
Source: Merriam Webster
Argumentum ad nauseam
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you’re sick of hearing it.
And the donut rolls on…
LikeLike
Dave. Are you perfect? From your excessively emotional reaction to a single factual error, it certainly seems so. You must be the perfect individual, devoid of any flaw or vice. You must go about your life loathing the rest of humanity because everyone makes mistakes except you. How unpleasant that must be. How can you watch a movie or go see any theatrical performance at all without bursting at the seams with disgust and enmity at the imperfect portrayal given by the actors or by the imperfect setting used? That is, after all, one of the central aims of theater (striving for accuracy). I just find it interesting that “striving for accuracy” is equal to “perfect” to you; that is, you think Ed a liar because he claims he is “striving for accuracy,” and because “striving for accuracy” means “perfect” to you, and Ed failed to meet your definition of “perfect,” Ed must by default be claiming falsities. I guess that makes me a liar as well, because I try to be accurate in everything I do, and I would claim as much, but Lord knows I’m not always as accurate as I would like to be, so I must be a conniving liar–at least, that’s the impression I get. Actually though, that makes most people I know liars, and I suspect most people you know as well, unless of course you make friends only with other perfect people. At any rate, “accurate” does not mean “perfect.” Any real scientist can tell you that. In fact, most, if not all, occupations allow for some imperfection: engineers, doctors, chemists, writers, priests… On an interesting note, this line of thinking also directly contradicts one of the central tenants of Christianity; that is, allowing for a margin of error so that the individual can grow and continue living comfortably (I believe we call that quality forgiveness).
I would like to think I’m wrong in this illustration of you though, Dave. Maybe you’re just a very intelligent good Samaritan who wanted to correct a mistake you saw in Ed’s post–a little how you paint yourself. But wait:
I was under the impression that you simply wanted to correct an innocuous error. I think it would have sufficed to say “Hey, Ed. I’m pretty positive Santayana is best known as a philosopher and I disagree with some of your other opinions,” but instead we get a very caustic attack on Ed as a person, and to top it off after all this debating a sarcastic remark telling Ed not to correct his mistake. So, what were you here for again?
I think it’s admirable that you stick up for a deceased man’s views because it irks you personally that Santayana is so often credited with something he didn’t do. At least, that is what you claim. You think that Santayana shouldn’t be credited with impacting the concept of history and how it is taught because that is not explicitly what he was talking about; fair enough, I suppose. But I find it ironic that you then admit that anyone who reads his own words without seeing them in context will see them as a statement on history, not on psychology. So what then has Santayana impacted more after his death; psychology or history?
So Dave, even though you know far fewer people remember Santayana for his obscure observation on human biological processes (that is actually now more wrong than right) than a somewhat incorrectly attributed (but profound nevertheless) comment on history, you feel that we do Santayana more good by taking away the thing most people credit him for? If you want to be completely honest then go ahead and tell everyone who credits him for a meaningful and correct interpretation of history that they are wrong and Santayana really meant something completely different, but who are you doing more good, Santayana? Humanity? I think we’re better off with the historical interpretation, no matter how misattributed it may be.
LikeLike
Wow! That is a very impressive display of research work. I think you are going to upset Onkel Bob, though. He doesn’t feel comfortable around people who get into details. (Is it OK to swear in other languages here?)
Well, if you look back among the comments, you see that I did eventually give you a response pertaining to the subject of the post. So, as far as that goes, you did well!
And, let me be frank here, I actually came upon this post purely by accident, and I thought it was funny that you considered Santayana a historian. I didn’t believe you would be able to back it up with any printed source, or even a web page, but I thought at least you could find another blogger to support you. I was surprised to find that you had no source at all, and that you ended up crossing it out anyway. After reading your passionate defense, I think you should go back and remove the strikethroughs. Stand up for your beliefs, man!
Unfortunately, it’s still wrong to say that Santayana was a historian. It’s like writing something about “Millard Fillmore, best known as a plumbing contractor, who encouraged us all, by his example, to put bathtubs in our living quarters.”
Here I’m going to give you some ground. There is no doubt that that quote, and its common understanding, are about all that almost anyone will ever know about Santayana by googling his name. Also, if anyone read only that quote, and nothing else, they would draw the same conclusion that you had.
“Striving for accuracy,” are you? Really? Yet, you admit that you had the same understanding of Santayana as someone who only googled his name, or read nothing more than one line. There’s nothing wrong with that, I suppose, unless you constantly use him to justify every point you make about history. And by that you impugn your own reputation; it has nothing to do with me. This is the dishonesty I am reacting to: your claim to be striving for accuracy, to be presenting factual and complete information.
Anyone who writes about what actually happens, or happened, is writing history. All of the other writers you cite described some events on some particular occasion. Santayana only did that in his autobiography. I was surprised that you didn’t bring that up, since back in the 1940s and 1950s that’s what he was best known for. That might have convinced me that the definition was fuzzy enough to forget about it.
I think you missed my point with some of these quotations. They were illustrating that Santayana has a view of history that is opposite of what you have expressed before. He has, on the one hand, a very “literary” view, in which accuracy is less important than the dramatic effect on people. Then there is his “evolutionary” view; I thought you might want to look more into that, since evolutionary theory is your other hobby-horse.
Yes, very good. If you had read anything biographical before this, you could have refuted me immediately by pointing this out, instead of using the “Google is always right” argument” or the quote-miner’s argument.
Of course, allowing every blogger, diarist, tenth-grader, etc. to be called a “historian” leaves all kinds of things out there as history, and leaves us with no standard for judging accuracy. Not as if we care about accuracy, or anything; we aren’t pedants around here. But calling every student of history a “historian” really cheapens it, don’t you think? Do you want your students to believe everything they read on the Internet?
Oh, never mind. I quoted the entire paragraph to you three times, and you even copied it back, and you still refuse to address any part of it other than the one sentence that you like. I can’t get blood from a turnip, I guess.
See above; you claim to be “striving for accuracy,” but you don’t show it.
I’m concerned about the future of the nation’s youth. I’m concerned that they are being taught to read superficially, to not read physical books at all, and to form opinions based entirely on political affiliation.
LikeLike
Had the post been about Santayana, that would have been closer to a fair criticism. I invite you to reread the post. It’s about campaign claims in a presidential election. The mention of Santayana was an off-hand, a quick introduction. If it is obvious to you that I did something I did not intend to do for reasons that never crossed my mind, you need to tone down your projection, or your paranoia, whichever one is driving your misperception. You ascribe motives and methods to me which are simply wrong.
And it’s wrong on a trivial point, besides. Did you read the post?
By that standard, you are a liar of epic proportions, having not bothered to figure out what the post was about, having misascribed motives, methods and knowledge to me, continuing to press a minor technical correction long after it’s been done.
You’re out of line. And wrong. The post says zippo about what I’ve read of Santayana (not a lot), nor about what I know about him (I read enough to make sure the quote was accurate and applied correctly to the ear of the blog).
Do a Google search for Santayana. Tell me which quote of his gets used most, and in what contexts. Do a poll: Stop 800 college students and ask them what Santayana’s profession was after reading the quote.
It’s a trivial point, colloquially correct, and not so wrong in any context as to deserve the epithets you’ve hurled my way, nor your attack on my character and reputation. Get over it.
You never responded to my characterizations of who writes history and why. Don’t accuse me of waffling in areas where you are absent.
By your crabbed, technocratic definition of historian, many of the great authors of history can’t be called authors of history. Homer, Herodotus, Ovid, Livy, Tacitus, the authors of the Torah, Julius Caesar, Pliny the Elder, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Hans Zinsser — you’d disallow all of their work from history. I often feel that people who self-label themselves as knowledgeable in philosophy don’t understand what they philosophize about. (Like those philosophers who argue that, philosophically, creationism could be science, and then extend that argument to claim that creationism IS science despite its failure to test out in observation and experiment — I weary of philosophers who claim to know more than the experts in the field.) I regret that, in your philosophy, writing about the essences of history does not or cannot fall into your pigeon hole reserved for history itself. My shelf doesn’t include pigeon holes. That’s a difference of philosophy, perhaps. A difference of philosophy does not make one a liar and the other not. Perhaps you should revisit the philosophy of veracity.
I wonder why it is you think that a contribution to the philosophy of history, to the philosophy of remembering, is not history? What is history without the tool of remembrance? How can your definition fail to disallow autobiography?
Had I read all of Reason and Common Sense it would still be true that Santayana is best known for his one quote that relates to history (a point of cultural literacy that all learned people should possess, Hirsch would say – see Hirsch, Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 2nd ed. revised, p. 57). Facts are stubborn things, John Adams observed. Oh, but Adams wasn’t a historian, nor a philosopher, so you’ll claim I can’t cite Adams.
The biggest difference is that philosophers are much sloppier in their citations. Homer didn’t use citations at all, nor did Julius Caesar. Nor did Herodotus, the Father of History.
So, to you, historians are only those who use the Harvard Blue Book, or maybe MLA, and publish only on historical events or trends, but with an eye toward “proving” something (so much for journalism being the first draft of history — I wonder who said that? Clearly whoever said that was not a historian, nor a philosopher, and probably never read Reason and Common Sense).
Too restrictive a definition for me. History comes from many sources, the most accurate histories corroborated by other histories and research, though some of the best histories are uncorroborated almost completely.
Sorry to disappoint you. Santayana was right, especially about history. Have you ever read Churchill?
And that is NOT history, how? The study of myth is precisely why history is important, and it is exactly to that point that Santayana’s quote applies. Now, perhaps you’re using the colloquial definition of “myth,” as meaning false, instead of the more academic, philosophers’ and rhetoricians’ definition of myth, meaning a story to which people give credence, and in relation to which they may alter their actions and lives.
As Griffin points out, “myth” is more powerful when accurate. But then, you don’t seem to like much that end of philosophy that trailed off into rhetorical criticism, and I’ll wager you haven’t read any of the Griffin school of rhetorical criticism anyway. That’s okay. It doesn’t make you a liar — by my standards. Sorry about yours.
If you want very fine experience in history, get thee to a library and read Marie Hochmuth Nichols’s rhetorical analysis of Lincoln’s first inaugural. It’s a powerful piece of rhetorical criticism, depending deeply on her detailed account of the events of that day. To you, I suppose, it’s not history. Too bad.
The story of the guy who found diamonds on the soles of his shoes springs to mind. Are aphorisms fair game for anything?
I’m really curious how you determine that’s not history-related, when it is the very stock of history. You will be appalled at the correspondence between Madison and Jefferson. Jefferson says almost exactly the same thing. Of course, by your definition, Jefferson had no right to say that, since he was not schooled in philosophy, and was not writing philosophy. On the other hand, Jefferson and Madison both believed in the freedom of thought and conscience, and they labored tirelessly to provide opportunities for others to study as broadly as they had. Making communities work requires such broad reading, they claimed.
I don’t know how that would fit into your philosophy. Good government, good politics, good education, smash out of the pigeon holes.
The variation human nature is open to is not, then, variation in any direction. There are transformations that would destroy it. So long as it endures it must retain all that constitutes it now, all that it has so far gathered and worked into its substance. The genealogy of progress is like that of man, who can never repudiate a single ancestor. It starts, so to speak, from a single point, free as yet to take any direction. When once, however, evolution has taken a single step, say in the direction of vertebrates, that step cannot be retraced without extinction of the species.
From this, you could reasonably infer a naturalistic philosophy of history, in which history progresses organically by building on traditional culture, but never repeats itself.
If we remember the past. You can also build a naturalistic philosophy of history in which people repeat errors of the past — where Xerxes follows the errors of his father, Darius, in attacking the Greeks, and gets his butt kicked like his father did. Or where a European megalomaniac, claiming to have learned the lessons of history, follows an earlier European megalomaniac in invading Russia — even on exactly the same day! — only to have the Russians pull their classic retreat-and-burn strategy, ultimately tying down the invaders and defeating them.
Right now we are engaged in a great economic crisis. One of the things that has distinguished the English-speaking peoples over the past 300 years is their ability to learn from past crises and avoid disasters, often. Can we avoid the disasters of the Great Depression, now? Part of the answer to that question of history will depend on whether we remember the past, and remember it accurately.
While denying that Santayana is a historian, you’ve made a good case that he was an astute student of history, and interpreter of history.
It’s dangerous to make statements based wholly on speculation without any grounding in fact, I find. You appear not to have much knowledge about how history is treated in American schools. Santayana warned us of such people, and such views.
I made up nothing imaginary about Santayana. I cited his observation that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. It’s a direct quote. It’s accurate. In the context I cited it, it squares with Santayana’s views as you outline them.
I’m still confused by what your complaint was, or why you pursued it in so belligerently cryptic fashion.
LikeLike
Thanks, Bob! Anything to make y’all look good.
No, I haven’t read much Vonnegut. He’s too popular where I live, and I need to maintain my low standing in society. It makes the other folks around me feel smarter.
LikeLike
Dave, pedants serve a vital role in society, they make the rest of us look good by comparison.
On behalf of serial killers, animal abusers, and neglectful parents everywhere, I extend a hearty Thank You! When someone complains about our foibles, we can always point to people such as you and say, “yeah, but I’m not an arschloch like that that guy.
Are you familiar with the Vonnegut quote regarding aerial copulation with a moving pastry? You should try it, it may enhance your standing in society.
LikeLike
By the way, James, I commend you for your effort. The “dictionary defense” is the least I would expect from a credible argument on the Internet. I disagree with your conclusion, but at least you gave it a minimal effort; and you quote your sources and cite them, which is unusual.
LikeLike
OK, Ed, I’ll try to be clear.
I called you an idiot because any biographical profile of Santayana would clearly say that he was known as many things, none of which would be a historian. So, you obviously wrote that introduction to your post without reading any biographical information about Santayana.
So, without actually knowing anything about Santayana, you lied about him. After being alerted to the fact that you were in error, you equivocated and shuffled around a bit. Then, you lied some more:
“Santayana is best known as a historian” is a sloppily done, quick comment — which is accurate.
And then you tried to waffle some more on what a historian is. This was because you didn’t know that Santayana had never contributed anything to the study of history. He was just a philosopher who mentioned history sometimes. He did study history, but he wasn’t known for that. So, finally you realized this, and changed your post. Good move.
If you had read Reason in Common Sense, you would have known that Santayana was not a historian, and that no historian or history teacher would ever mistake him for a historian. He almost never cites historical events or trends. He doesn’t describe them or use them to prove anything. He hardly ever gives his sources for anything. He rarely footnotes and gives no bibliography. On top of all that, his philosophy of history is completely opposed to what you promote on your blog, that is, the careful study of actual history in order to present it objectively.
On the contrary, in several of his books, including <Reason in Common Sense, Dominations and Powers, and Scepticism and Animal Faith, he clearly states that the purpose of studying history is to provide factual material that the modern historian can use to create myths: “its virtue is not at all to be true, but to be well invented” (Scepticism and Animal Faith, p. 253).
Also, in <Reason and Common Sense Santayana describes his philosophy of how human nature changes. You see, he is an uncompromising materialist, naturalist, and evolutionist. Human nature, he believes, is rooted in animal nature, but always changing. It never repeats itself.
p. 270
On page 284 in the same chapter, “Flux and Constancy in Human Nature,” he discusses progress and retentiveness in individual organisms. This is where the famous passage is found. Infants and unevolved humans, he believes, struggle to remember anything, and so are consigned to act from instinct. A mature man remembers his experience and acts accordingly, modifying his animal instincts with reason. An old man repeats the same mistakes over and over, because he can’t remember that a particular action previously failed to get satisfactory results.
Later, on page 286, Santayana extends the example of individuals to include an entire species:
From this, you could reasonably infer a naturalistic philosophy of history, in which history progresses organically by building on traditional culture, but never repeats itself.
That, apparently, would contradict your personal philosophy of teaching history, so you have chosen to ignore the actual text of Santayana’s book and just make up imaginary things about him.
LikeLike
And at any rate, the fact that this excerpt could correctly be construed as a commentary on history without any part losing any meaning, means that Ed is justified in construing the quote that way, at least within the bounds established here.
LikeLike
Dave,
I will first and foremost tell you that what I know about George Santayana I got from reading this post and the following comments, but this gives me a fair opportunity to look at the paragraph you provided and give a somewhat unbiased interpretation of what Santayana is saying. Please note that anything I say about Santayana and his views is confined solely to the information you have provided, and so my argument is only applicable within these bounds.
As my dictionary, I will use http://www.merriam-webster.com/
As purported by both Ed and yourself, Santayana is known as a philosopher. (You will notice that Ed corrected the content of the post, and has recently been referring to Santayana as a philosopher). Perhaps Santayana can be described as many things, but it seems clear that at least we think the best way to characterize Santayana is as a philosopher. What is a philosopher? Well, according to Merriam-Webster, a philosopher is:
1 a: a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : scholar , thinker b: a student of philosophy
2 a: a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier b: an expounder of a theory in a particular area of experience c: one who philosophizes
By 1a and 2b, it is clear that a philosopher is by no means necessarily an expert in any one specific field. In fact, a philosopher can comment on and think about anything he/she chooses, whether it be psychology, history, science, math, ethics, or the meaning of life. What is clear is that philosophers are aiming at what they believe to be the truth; they are using reason, logic, and other faculties to try and get to the truth of various subjects. That said, many philosophers have had significant consequences on life after their existence; specifically, they tend to affect those areas of life which they have philosophized about. For instance, Locke influenced what we know as science, Hume influenced what we know as psychology. Because I do not know much about Santayana, I cannot say for sure what he spent his time philosophizing about, but I can read the excerpt you gave and see if I can interpret what he was philosophizing about.
In this excerpt, Santayana gives a well reasoned description of the progression of human life (among other things); specifically, he describes this progression in three stages. The first stage appears to be something like infancy or youth, where he claims that the mind is not good at “retentiveness” and that “progress” does not occur because the mind fails in “consecutiveness and persistence.” Then Santayana describes the second stage as roughly adulthood, where “progress” occurs because the human has retained much experience and can incorporate new information into this experience. Santayana closes by saying the last stage is a reversion back into a state similar to that of the first stage.
Now, I notice a few interesting things in this excerpt. Throughout the little excursion into human development, Santayana keeps referring to this “progress.” In fact, the entire depiction hinges on this notion of “progress.” Well, at the very beginning, Santayana says, “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness.” So what does Santayana mean by “progress?” Well let’s look at Merriam-Webster’s definition of “progress.”
1 a (1): a royal journey marked by pomp and pageant (2): a state procession b: a tour or circuit made by an official (as a judge) c: an expedition, journey, or march through a region
2: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : advance
3: gradual betterment ; especially : the progressive development of humankind
If we take progress to mean only dfn 1, then the entire excerpt looks like a commentary on some sort of biological progression, even though Santayana rarely refers to any rigidly biological terms. For another interpretation, let’s look at Merriam-Webster’s dfn of “history.”
1: tale , story
2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b: a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a patient’s medical background d: an established record
3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events
4 a: events that form the subject matter of a history b: events of the past c: one that is finished or done for d: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)
If we look at the other half of the first sentence, “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness,” we notice that Santayana describes progress in terms of “retentiveness.” Let’s see what Merriam-Webster says about the word “retain.”
1 a: to keep in possession or use b: to keep in one’s pay or service ; specifically : to employ by paying a retainer c: to keep in mind or memory : remember
2: to hold secure or intact
It looks as if in order attain a history of something, we must retain records of certain events. A biological analog to this would be memory. We can clearly see that the definition of history can be found in this excerpt, so depending on how we look at progress, we can interpret this excerpt as a commentary of biological processes or of some notion of history, where the progression of human development used is a very relevant example.
It is also interesting to note that Santayana does not use the word “psychology” once in this excerpt, and thus an interpretation of this excerpt as a commentary on psychology would have to be implied by the reader.
Dave, to say that this excerpt by itself must only be construed one way would completely neglect the fact that it could just as easily and correctly be construed another.
Perhaps if this excerpt was taken out of a chapter titled “Psychology” we would be sure, but your excerpt alone does not tell us this.
LikeLike
You did your best, but failed to reread the line you complained about to see whether it had been changed. You did your best, but failed to state a complaint that could be acted on, or that had any relevance to any discussion other than a trivial and foolish “gotcha.” If that’s your best, it confirms my disappointments.
You called me an idiot and a liar because you don’t know me, you’re angry at something you have not stated, and you choose to act out the anger in bizarre ways, hoping someone will pick up on what it is. I’m not a cryptographer, I’m not a therapist. I’d say you’re projecting, but that’s just a guess.
If you had a valid complaint about something, what the hell was it? Why are you so bugged that Santayana has any traction in history? Who makes you the arbiter who gets to rule that’s bad?
LikeLike
Dave complained about a hastily written line. I changed it. Lout that he seems bent to be, Dave does not acknowledge that, nor will he say what it is that has him bugged. I’m no liar, but Dave waves the word around as if he knows anything about me, or history, or anything else — suggesting that even if he has read the stuff, he didn’t learn the lessons.
If he has a complaint, he can air it here. I’m not trying to save face at all, but I do suggest that people who wish to win respect should act differently that Dave has here.
Dave is still ticked off, I suspect, that he has been unable to tie Stalin to Darwin. Were he the honest reader you claim, he’d confess that, and I suspect his anger would subside, and he’d not need to try to make hay on a point of triviality.
I know all I want to know about Dave at the moment, JV. I don’t wish to know much more.
The comments here are wide open, uncensored but for profanity, to keep it safe for school kids. If Dave has something to say, he shouldn’t let his tongue wobble in his head so, but simply spit it out. If you want to watch dogma, go look up Dave’s claims that Stalin was a Darwinist.
And if Dave knows something about Santayana, he’s welcome to say it here. I do resent his display of lack of manners, but let him display knowledge, if he has it.
LikeLike
Ed says, in regards to Dave, “But then, you’ve never read Santayana much, I guess. ”
I don’t want to defend Dave too much, Ed, but I can take some pleasure in you sticking your foot in your mouth, even if you don’t know how bad you’ve done it.
Dave knows a thing or two about Santayana. Ask him about it. He might tell you why, or maybe he won’t.
That’s funny that you’re still trying to save face for having made the extraordinarily dumb statement, “Santayana is best known as a historian.” Of course, maybe what you really meant is “Santayana is best known as a historian among laymen,” as opposed to “Santayana is best known as a historian among academic professionals.” But probably not, since you present yourself as an academic professional, and your claim about Santayana was probably meant to bolter your image as a “fellow historian.”
I’ll keep you in mind when I’m tempted to make dogmatic claims about things I know very little about.
LikeLike
OK, Ed. I did my best to correct you. I even provided you with the complete paragraph from Reason in Common Sense, again; and again you have ignored it. That is why I called you an idiot and a liar. You have confirmed my opinion that public school teachers have below average intelligence and integrity.
LikeLike
Tell us again that you’re a fiscal conservative, Dave . . .
LikeLike
Look honestly at the full paragraph above, and tell me that it encourages you to study history.
LikeLike
I know Santayana had a chair in philosophy. His philosophy sometimes dealt with how we read history. I know one of his most famous lines deals with why we should bother to know the past at all. The quote was not out of context at all.
Go back to sleep, get up on the other side of the bed. Dozens of times I cite Santayana (look for the category of posts for “Santayana’s Ghost). Quibble with the citations if you wish, but do it with reason and fact. Take your calumny elsewhere.
LikeLike
Is Santayana known for his contributions to the study of history? No.
Is Santayana known for a quote that is misinterpreted by people who have never read the entire passage quoted above? Yes.
Have you, purportedly a history teacher, participated in propagating a folklore myth as if it were true, just because you agree with its implications? Yes.
The point is that you did not know that Santayana was a philosopher, that he made no contribution to the study of history, and that Santayana’s actual philosophy is completely opposite to what you claim.
It is one thing to provide a quote out of context and say that it inspires you in a certain way because of its phrasing. This is the normal way that ideas move through the culture and change; we cannot all be experts who read and comment only in a narrow field of interest.
It is, however, dishonest to attribute your personal opinion to the author of the extracted quote, and to completely misrepresent him.
LikeLike
One doesn’t need to hold a title in the field to contribute. Santayana’s contributions shouldn’t count?
Several posts in, I wonder why you didn’t simply observe that it would be more accurate to call Santayana a philosopher. Snark sometimes doesn’t aid your argument. I’m still puzzling about what your point is, other than you bear animosity.
LikeLike
Sorry, Ed, we cross-posted there. It’s not sloppily done, it’s just wrong. Shall we call someone a historian who never produced a work of history?
LikeLike
How is it that a studious remembering of the past is not a study of history?
“Santayana is best known as a historian” is a sloppily done, quick comment — which is accurate. Santayana’s appointment was in philosophy, yes. That doesn’t change how he is popularly known. Millard Fillmore is most famous for his putting a bathtub in the White House, too, though he didn’t do that.
What sort of bug bit your gluteals this time, Dave?
LikeLike
Here, for your edification, I will again present the entire paragraph that you love so much. As you will see, the subject of this paragraph is human psychology, not the study of history:
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience. In a second stage men are docile to events, plastic to new habits and suggestions, yet able to graft them on original instincts, which they thus bring to fuller satisfaction. This is the plane of manhood and true progress. Last comes a stage when retentiveness is exhausted and all that happens is at once forgotten; a vain, because unpractical, repetition of the past takes the place of plasticity and fertile readaptation. In a moving world readaptation is the price of longevity. The hard shell, far from protecting the vital principle, condemns it to die down slowly and be gradually chilled; immortality in such a case must have been secured earlier, by giving birth to a generation plastic to the contemporary world and able to retain its lessons. Thus old age is as forgetful as youth, and more incorrigible; it displays the same inattentiveness to conditions; its memory becomes self-repeating and degenerates into an instinctive reaction, like a bird’s chirp.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15000/15000-h/vol1.html#CHAPTER_XII_FLUX_AND_CONSTANCY_IN_HUMAN_NATURE
LikeLike
[…] November 2008 by Dave A great “historian” once wrote these words: To give a general picture of human nature and its rational functions will […]
LikeLike
No, Santayana wasn’t referring to a study of history. I have previously posted a longer portion of the source of your quote, in the comments on your blog, but you ignored it. Since you have forgotten the past, you have repeated your error.
There’s no interpretation here: “George Santayana is best known as a historian” is a blatant lie.
Your point about the cartoon, and cartoons in general, is spot-on. You seem to be quite competent within your chosen realm of teaching, based on your presentation of your methods here. However, when wandering outside of this realm, you are apt to flounder because of your overconfidence in your ability to improvise.
LikeLike
So, Dave, now you’re saying Santayana wasn’t referring to a study of history?
Right. And whenever he said “philosophy,” he really meant “auto mechanics.”
If you have an argument with Santayana’s statement, make the case. If you have a complaint about the cartoon, make your complaint. If you think I shouldn’t note that Santayana is generally known for this remark — whether that gets him into the realm of historians or not — then make the case that Santayana is not known for the remark.
My point in the post above is that Greenburg brilliantly states in five brief panels a key point in this year’s election. Santayana warned us to read history, and Greenburg shows us why it’s important to do so. Do you disagree? Make a case, then.
But don’t bother me with games of cryptic reformation of the words others wrote.
LikeLike
No, the difficulty is that you lied because you didn’t actually know anything about Santayana other than that one line.
Also, you have never read “Reason in Common Sense,” or you would know that your favorite quote has nothing to do with studying history.
LikeLike
Dave, you are not the Delphic Oracle. You should state what you mean, or you produce little but sound and fury. From your first post, how can a reasonable person know your argument is about pigeonholing?
You’re right in a technical sense. Santayana’s appointment was in philosophy. He didn’t lecture in history. Perhaps I should have said, “Santayana the philosopher is best known for his history aphorisms.” You’re right.
But then, you’ve never read Santayana much, I guess. You’re right, I read too little. No amount of reading would ever get me to read your mind over the internet. You win the pigeonhole argument: Santayana was not a professionally trained, lecturing historian. The difficulty is that Santayana doesn’t live in pigeonholes.
LikeLike
Ed, Santayana was not a historian.
But, since you don’t actually “read books,” you would never know that, would you?
LikeLike
So, Dave, do you disagree, or are you just practicing being disagreeable? If you disagree, state the disagreement.
LikeLike
“George Santayana is best known as a historian. He’s famous for his observation on the importance of studying history to understand it, and getting it right: ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'”
Ed, you are an idiot. Maybe you should read one of Santayana’s books someday.
LikeLike
[…] Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub: cute but profound blurb here. […]
LikeLike