The Repetition Of History

History is said to repeat itself, and the familiar phrase "Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it" might be added as a warning.  It is true that one might find examples of repetitive patterns at different points in recorded history, and yet the common explanation for this--the aforementioned claim about ignorance of history--is at best incomplete.  If a historical pattern repeats, it is not necessarily for this reason, and even if historical ignorance is a factor, it is usually one of several.

It needs to be clarified that when I speak of history in this post, I am not referring to the events recalled in someone's memories that suggests these events occurred earlier in their life, but I am instead referring to past events of the sort that happened before one was born or outside of one's experiences while living.  Memories are evidence for historical events, but only for events one has experienced, whereas history in a broader sense includes events outside of a given individual's experiences (not that a memory proves the historicity of an event [1]).  Regarding the latter, how much is ignorance of historical documents to blame when an event in a person's life plays out like events of the distant past?

Ironically, blaming similar historical occurrences solely or even mostly on an alleged ignorance of history is itself thoroughly ignorant.  There is only a finite number of possibilities for the outcome of a given sequence of events, and thus, given enough time, it is very likely that certain things will happen multiple times, whether or not the people involved are historically informed.  The repetition of history does not prove what some lovers of history think: it does not establish that the historical record has any significance beyond its value for Christian apologetics, its subjective appeal for certain people, and its occasional convenience.

As for the convenience sometimes offered by history, familiarity with historical information on a general level does not even bring with it the same immediate convenience that familiarity with scientific information does.  At least scientific information is directly relevant to the practical nature of daily activities, but awareness of the battles and rulers of past civilizations tends to have little to no relevance to how one lives, much less to how one should live.  This admission is not anti-history, for it simply acknowledges that the usefulness of history is very limited.  Rather, it recognizes the true place of history in philosophy and in life.

In short, the philosophical and practical value of history is often overestimated for the sake of subjective fascination.  No one is doomed to repeat history simply because they have not studied records of past events outside of their lifetime; if anything, those who repeat history usually do so because only certain outcomes are even possible to begin with!  The person who does not take this into consideration merely conveys their own ineptitude rather than conveying some supposedly deep truth about history.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-nuance-of-memory-and-identity.html