Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

In the end, is history all about imagination rathe

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
sreenivasarao s View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 115
  Quote sreenivasarao s Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: In the end, is history all about imagination rathe
    Posted: 05-May-2007 at 05:29
historiography

Edited by sreenivasarao s - 25-Jun-2007 at 14:23
Back to Top
Ovidius View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
  Quote Ovidius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-May-2007 at 17:36
I love how much philosophy is levelled against History in an attempt to express how it is an Art and not a science. History is really independent from this ridiculous way of organising academic fields. The only reason these labels were created was to form different administrative departments at universities.

So in England its an Art, America its a Social Science and in Germany its a Science, all to do with the specific development of the academia. It does make any difference to how the study of history is performed.

Why such epithets are hurled at History is mainly because, often, any one event will have many versions of the truth and it is very difficult to judge objectively which version   of truth is the truth. There is no single method that can distinguish a good history from a bad one.  And, as already posted on the Forum a good history of one generation may become the bad history for the next generation. Further, the process of    recording history involves a number of variables and many of those are beyond the control of the historians. It also depends on such mundane factors as-- who wrote the history? About whom? Why they wrote it? How they wrote? Etc. In short, there is no benchmark for good history.


This at the end of the day is merely a manipulation of ideas to form a rather simplistic conclusion.

Firstly, there is truth in History. There are facts, one cannot deny certain facts in History, things did happen.

Now the writing of history is based on the personal subjectivity inherent within whatever academic is writing that history. There are many difficulties in intepreting the past, because of how our minds are shaped within our contemporary enviroment. This does not invalidate History, nor does it mean history is wrong, just means it is never going to be absolute. There is a difference between recording the past and history, History is the study and analysis of the past, recording the past is the role of the administrator or not, as it might seem.

As for good history - there are plenty of methods to indicate good and bad history. Use of sources, methods, their interpretation etc - it is part of history - to understand what is good history.

As for the dichotomy between "us" and "them". This goes for everything. We cannot help but analyse in relation to something. In the Western Case, we generally are writing in relation to ourselves. In other areas, often people write in reaction to the West. But there is really no easy seperation from certain conventions.

I do not think that this is a significant problem, we just need to be aware of this and, obviously, be careful how we use such material.

Bad History is Bad history. Most History is written for the right reasons.

back projection? Never heard of this.

As for History now, its changing yes, but its just forming a new elitist ideal on what history should be in the future. It is becomming a world of individualism and having an understanding of human nature and selfishness of the human spirit - which are ideals taken from modern society and not from an understanding of the past as it was.

There are always going to be fundemental flaws in History, just as with any Academic field. Name one Academic field that is 'Exact'?
Back to Top
sreenivasarao s View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 115
  Quote sreenivasarao s Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2007 at 03:21
historiography

Edited by sreenivasarao s - 25-Jun-2007 at 14:23
Back to Top
Kevin View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 27-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 767
  Quote Kevin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2007 at 19:22
I tend to view history as mix of everything, History in mt opinion is unique and can't be considered ether an art or a science.
Back to Top
Dawn View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3148
  Quote Dawn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2007 at 23:56
there in lies the problem . Art is mostly subjective where science is general objective.
Back to Top
Ovidius View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
  Quote Ovidius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2007 at 18:11
Why is Science objective? Or how is Science Objective?

Surely, at the end of the day, most things in Science are based on interpretation and analysis - the Human element and human incapabilities are still a reality in Science.


Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 11:58
Science has an objective measure, though. The purpose of science is to build models which can predict phenomena in the world. Either they work, and they predict phenomena with precision, or they don't. Take heliocentrism (prior to modern astrological instruments, space flight etc). It predicted the motion of the planets accurately, so it was good science.

History hasn't got a yardstick like that. The events already happened, we're just trying to figure out what exactly did happen. Contrary to the popular notion, I think history never repeats itself - similar things happen but they are never the same, and the study of history has so far not yielded any sort of model of human society that can predict events with any sort of precision, nor do I think it ever will. It's not a science.

I don't think it's an Art either, because it isn't a creative pursuit. If history is art, then so is a jigsaw puzzle. History probably has more common with philosophy or maybe even law, in that it is about finding truths about a thing.
Back to Top
zeno View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 30-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote zeno Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 14:11
Originally posted by sreenivasarao s

 It also depends on such mundane factors as-- who wrote the history? About whom? Why they wrote it? How they wrote?

 
i dont find these questions mundane! A lot of what you said seems to be about historiography as much as actual history.
 
Originally posted by sreenivasarao s

Similar fate may have befallen other unlettered societies whose history was recorded by civilized outsiders.

rather than becoming stuck on this problem, isn't this a great incentive to 'discover' forgotten people/customs/places etc
 
Originally posted by sreenivasarao s

 

Apparently, who writes about whom matters a great deal more than it should.

why apparently? the author always matters.
 
 
Originally posted by sreenivasarao s

Histories have been written to teach children hate a particular group or a country.
Therefore, if anyone claims a monopoly on a particular piece of history, it is then heavily tinged with an ulterior motive.

examples other than the obvious fascist/communist states?

Originally posted by sreenivasarao s

Yet , I am optimistic that we will eventually arrive at a convincing  method  for explaining patterns of human life and human  history.

your post reads as very cynical in fact!

What are you hoping for? A convincing method? WHo is not convinced with current historiography?
 
there is a great amount of imagination involved, as with any literary field. I actually find this the most rewarding part.
Mommsen and Gibbon had the imagination to bring the Roman Empire back to life for example.
Frazer's Golden Bough is a masterpiece of historiographical imagination
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 18:29
History is both objective and subjective at the same time. The good writer of history, like a bird having two wings, needs both to fly.
elenos
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.064 seconds.