In the end, is history all about imagination rathe
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: The Academy
Forum Discription: Discussions about how to write history and conduct research
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19560
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 17:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: In the end, is history all about imagination rathe
Posted By: sreenivasarao s
Subject: In the end, is history all about imagination rathe
Date Posted: 05-May-2007 at 05:29
| historiography |
Replies:
Posted By: Ovidius
Date 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.
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 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'? |
Posted By: sreenivasarao s
Date Posted: 06-May-2007 at 03:21
| historiography |
Posted By: Kevin
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 23:56
|
there in lies the problem . Art is mostly subjective where science is general objective. ------------- |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date 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. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date 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. |
Posted By: zeno
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 14:11
i dont find these questions mundane! A lot of what you said seems to be about historiography as much as actual history.
rather than becoming stuck on this problem, isn't this a great incentive to 'discover' forgotten people/customs/places etc
why apparently? the author always matters.
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 ------------- 
|
Posted By: elenos
Date 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 |