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 - 01:00:19 PST