I am struck by the challenge of taking concrete things that have happened (or at least have supposedly happened) and searching for their root cause in processes that seem anything but concrete. To trace that path of human history based on events that we know to have occured, and then try to understand how human history has developed as it has is an enormous task. These events are influenced by what I currently understand to be very complicated human beings. Depending on the day, I am either very impressed by Daimond or think he's a fool for taking on such a task as to explain the history of people so complex as us. So, do I need to broaden my perspective or what? Sometimes I read and I think to myself, "I can't believe this guy has is writing like this; how can Diamond make the claims of human history that he does?" I think I am still feeling out a balance of holding what I read in perspective and trying to feel out the lines of theory and fact, and in the midst of that understand some of the basic ideas and concepts of the book so far.
Perhaps this boils down to this question: "Is Diamond making claims that essentially lead up reasons for the circumstances that I live in today, and if so, what is my response?" It think this requires an understanding of personal bias as I read the book.
So anyways, I don't know if this really progresses past my previous thoughts. But, nevertheless, that's what I am thinking through today.
No comments:
Post a Comment