The Time-Truth Continuum

how can an idea be totally new...

it exists before anybody observes its applicability in any certain circumstance in nature. 

similarly, what is historical truth? truth is substantiated with proofs we already have. and these historically correct proofs are the primary sources to which every researcher reverts back, and checks and rechecks his findings. the primary sources range from epigraphs, and stone carvings, archaeological findings, to numismatic sources, to written sources on paper and papyrus, to oral sources. but how do we know for certain that whatever we find here is the truth and nothing but the truth? what if the British documents (in my case, suppose a memoir or a government document) i have read says something while, oral tradition says somethings completely different, and there is absolutely no other source to corroborate my answer to the questions i have formed. what if i think in favour of the written source and distrust the oral source. will i ever reach the truth? i may well be mistaken and the oral may be true while the written may not. how does one ascertain the truth?

what is the truth?

and how come we get stuck trying to figure out what to look at to ascertain the fact...is there a fact. the fact written in history books or even in some body's private papers and memoirs has been drawn to a conclusion after judging facts he has either seen with his own eyes or read from another mans judgement. how is it even minutely possible for us to be judges of what has been judged already...

are we reading or doing anything new?

is history really discovering anything new?

is history a notion of judging other people's past judgement?

is history a deconstruction of previous deconstruction?

i don't know what I'm doing wasting time. i don't feel like reading British surveyor memoirs and papers in an effort to trace the growth of an institution from a certain year to a certain year...because i have already taken it for granted then that it has been a growth and i will have to strive to prove only that. and i am driven by my sources which is framing my research. i am compelled to prove what they have in the frame. and if there comes up suddenly something which counters the sources, my research will end in a debate like an intellectual scholar who leaves the thread of his argument hanging in the air.

what is the truth?

i wonder.