Summary Of Chapter 5 Of Metaphysical Animals

In Chapter 5 of Metaphysical Animals, the authors discuss the conflicting understandings of the past. Specifically, how the past relates to the present and future, and how our understanding of the past can be explored through a more scrutinized lens. There are conflicting opinions on how to understand the “past.” Importantly, there is some discussion regarding whether it is important to remember the past, and how the past comes into fruition in the human mind. Elizabeth gives the best interpretation of the past, in my opinion, when she argues that the past comes from our actions in the present. She says that “We share memories, give witness reports, hold each other accountable, write history books. In our own lives, our past actions shape the

They could say that any interpretation is correct because it was a lived experience and all feelings toward it are equally weighted. However, someone who believes in objective morality would counter this argument by saying that the first account (highlighting that African Americans were fighting for equal rights after a long period of inequality), is a better interpretation of the past event (and one that is rooted in reality, truth, and morality). If we were weighing all first-hand accounts of the past the same, however, a history book would look much different than it does today. The interpretation of the Civil War would grant the beliefs of slaveholders much more grace than need-be, and could treat World War 2 as un-needed aggression from foreign adversaries on Germany’s rise to power. So with that being established, it is important to question morality and ethics when reciting past events, and pushing back against falsely held accounts of important historical events. Some could argue against this view, however. They may argue that the past is open to interpretation and can be different from person to person depending on their

Therefore, these stories must be truthful and well thought out for the past to guide our future actions. If first hand accounts don’t push a true moral viewpoint, then future generations that pass these stories down won’t be taught the important lessons that come from history. Elizabeth argues this in her interpretation of the past when she says that the past shapes how we act in the future and whether we make “penance or reparation,” so to ignore the implications behind a skewed, disproven, and outdated view on a past event would screw up the moral progression of history, and make our present and future reality less informed, less well-taught, and less ethical. Once again, in a practical sense, there is nothing wrong with understanding the differing views around past events. It wouldn’t be smart or practical to simply ignore why Hitler chose to persecute the victims of the Holocaust, it would actually be better to do so. But the problem I’m arguing against rests on the moral subjectivity of past accounts of