Something I've been thinking about lately is the legitimacy of oral history.
Western thought tends to give more credence to written history versus oral history. And in general, to written languages versus purely spoken languages.
But I tend to feel this is a biased view of the world. Especially as a member of a people who have tended to be disregarded by history due to our illiteracy (I am Native American), I feel I must defend oral history. Why should written history be valued over oral history?
I believe they both have their advantages and disadvantages.
I think one area where this is evident is the distinction between knowledge and wisdom.
I propose that oral history favors wisdom, while written history favors knowledge.
In a culture of oral history that is passed down by elders and experts, wisdom and knowledge tend to be conveyed at the same time. While in a culture of written history, a novice may partake of multitudes of knowledge from written works, without drinking in wisdom, which can be more difficult to convey through the written word than through personal teachings.
An interesting area that I think demonstrates this is the martial arts. In this case, although the culture possesses the capacity for written history, we have areas of expertise that are exclusively conveyed via oral history. I believe this to be a case of a society — in a particular paradigm — choosing to use the advantages of oral history (which favors wisdom) over that of written history (which favors knowledge).
What are others' thoughts regarding written language versus spoken language? And cultures which use or favor one over the other?
Western thought tends to give more credence to written history versus oral history. And in general, to written languages versus purely spoken languages.
But I tend to feel this is a biased view of the world. Especially as a member of a people who have tended to be disregarded by history due to our illiteracy (I am Native American), I feel I must defend oral history. Why should written history be valued over oral history?
I believe they both have their advantages and disadvantages.
I think one area where this is evident is the distinction between knowledge and wisdom.
I propose that oral history favors wisdom, while written history favors knowledge.
In a culture of oral history that is passed down by elders and experts, wisdom and knowledge tend to be conveyed at the same time. While in a culture of written history, a novice may partake of multitudes of knowledge from written works, without drinking in wisdom, which can be more difficult to convey through the written word than through personal teachings.
An interesting area that I think demonstrates this is the martial arts. In this case, although the culture possesses the capacity for written history, we have areas of expertise that are exclusively conveyed via oral history. I believe this to be a case of a society — in a particular paradigm — choosing to use the advantages of oral history (which favors wisdom) over that of written history (which favors knowledge).
What are others' thoughts regarding written language versus spoken language? And cultures which use or favor one over the other?
Last edited: