I think it was Don who asked this rather than me. But the answer was
illuminating.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul H.Dillon" <illonph@pacbell.net>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: History
> Geoff asked,
>
> >Why are only subjects (individuals or
> > collectives) historical? Does a word have a history? A gun? A mountain?
A
> > kidney? Is someone(thing) historical only because it has significance
> (e.g.,
> > Rosa Parks vs. walking a dog). Significant for whom? Historians?
>
> To me the answer is self-evident: because (as far as we know) humans are
the
> only ones for whom history exists. First and foremost their own history
> whether as a recollection of what happened in a day or a mythological
> emergence out of the Grand Canyon; human existence is prima facie
historical
> existence. A gun, a mountain, a kidney, as far as I know, do not have a
> history for themself. Only for humans does history as such exist.
>
> Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:20 PST