Philosophy of History
DiscussieHistory: On learning from and writing history
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1eschator83
Recently I stumbled into the website of Brill Journal of Philosophy of History, and find myself both curious and puzzled (what's new?). I hope readers will comment:
Do you have a philosophy of history--and can you summarize it?
Is there a particular philosopher (of history or more) that you particularly endorse?
Does philosophy suggest what are the most important lessons we should learn from history?
Do you have a philosophy of history--and can you summarize it?
Is there a particular philosopher (of history or more) that you particularly endorse?
Does philosophy suggest what are the most important lessons we should learn from history?
2Cecrow
I guess this pertains to what primarily determines how history unfolds? Whether it is key individuals who direct events, or random events themselves, or what kinds of interactions arise among them when they simultaneously occur. I do like what I recently read in Millennium: A History of the Last Thousand Years: that the actual facts we can research and determine as facts now don't matter nearly so much in understanding what came next than what people at that time believed the facts were. Unless you want to identify those beliefs as facts once you've determined them, in which case I'm all muddled again.
3eschator83
I'm leaning in the direction that there should primarily be a science of history, with emphasis on what happened, when, by whom, and where, and which must be supported by precise and detailed evaluation of supporting evidence. The why and how seems more the province of sociology, philosophy, and psychology, but sadly disagreements in those fields seems to be retarding and twisting our historical.
Probably the most tragic events of world history are the Communist Revolutions in Russia and China, which seem to have resulted in the deaths of 40 and 80 million people, respectively, yet how little is recorded.
Probably the most tragic events of world history are the Communist Revolutions in Russia and China, which seem to have resulted in the deaths of 40 and 80 million people, respectively, yet how little is recorded.
4Cecrow
I'm also sensitive to the adage that "history is written by the victors". This applies to periods of peace just as much as to times of war.
5proximity1
On History* (1908)
By Bertrand Russell
OF ALL THE studies by which men acquire citizenship of the intellectual commonwealth, no single one is so indispensable as the study of the past. To know how the world developed to the point at which our individual memory begins; how the religions, the institutions, the nations among which we live, became what they are; to be acquainted with the great of other times, with customs and beliefs differing widely from our own – these things are indispensable to any consciousness of our position, and to any emancipation from the accidental circumstances of our education. It is not only to the historian that history is valuable, not only to the professed student of archives and documents, but to all who are capable of a contemplative survey of human life. But the value of history is so multiform, that those to whom some one of its sides appeals with especial force are in constant danger of forgetting all the others. ...
...
II
Another and a greater utility, however, belongs also to history. It enlarges the imagination, and suggests possibilities of action and feeling which would not have occurred to an uninstructed mind. It selects from past lives the elements which were significant and important; it fills our thoughts with splendid examples, and with the desire for greater ends than unaided reflection would have discovered. It relates the present to the past, and thereby the future to the present. It makes visible and living the growth and greatness of nations, enabling us to extend our hopes beyond the span of our own lives. In all these ways, a knowledge of history is capable of giving to statesmanship, and to our daily thoughts, a breadth and scope unattainable by those whose view is limited to the present.
What the past does for us may be judged, perhaps, by the consideration of those younger nations whose energy and enterprise are winning the envy of Europe. In them we see developing a type of man, endowed with all the hopefulness of the Renaissance or of the Age of Pericles, persuaded that his more vigorous efforts can quickly achieve whatever has proved too difficult for the generations that preceded him. Ignorant and contemptuous of the aims that inspired those generations, unaware of the complex problems that they attempted to solve, his rapid success in comparatively simple achievements encourages his confident belief that the future belongs to him. But to those who have grown up surrounded by monuments of men and deeds whose memory they cherish, there is a curious thinness about the thoughts and emotions that inspire this confidence; optimism seems to be sustained by a too exclusive pursuit of what can be easily achieved; and hopes are not transmuted into ideals by the habit of appraising current events by their relation to the history of the past. Whatever is different from the present is despised. That among those who contributed nothing to the dominion of Mammon great men lived, that wisdom may reside in those whose thoughts are not dominated by the machine, is incredible to this temper of mind. Action, Success, Change, are its watchwords; whether the action is noble, the success in a good cause, or the change an improvement in anything except wealth, are questions which there is no time to ask. Against this spirit, whereby all leisure, all care for the ends of life, are sacrificed to the struggle to be first in a worthless race, history and the habit of living with the past are the surest antidotes; and in our age, more than ever before, such antidotes are needed.
Bertrand Russell, “On History,” The Independent Review 3 (Jul 1904), 207-15
( https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-on-history.html )
"On History", included in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, edited by Robert E. Egner and Lester E. Denonn ; Routledge U.K. / Simon and Schuster U.S.
PART 13: The Philosopher of History
* Chapter 56 : On History
Chapter 57 : The Materialistic Theory of History
Chapter 58: History as an Art
6DinadansFriend
>4 Cecrow::
Arnold Toynbee in his volume ten of "A Study of History" has a chapter on "The Inspirations of Historians" which I like as it seems to indicate that history is seldom written by the actual winners in a conflict (with the exception of the diary of Babur, the founder of the Mughal empire who wrote his book while in the gaps of conquering India). Instead it is written by academics, or by those whose performance as members of the winner society has been sub-par. Thucydides, for instance was not one of the good commanders in the Peloponnese War. Churchill often did his historical writing when he was out of office, etc.
Arnold Toynbee in his volume ten of "A Study of History" has a chapter on "The Inspirations of Historians" which I like as it seems to indicate that history is seldom written by the actual winners in a conflict (with the exception of the diary of Babur, the founder of the Mughal empire who wrote his book while in the gaps of conquering India). Instead it is written by academics, or by those whose performance as members of the winner society has been sub-par. Thucydides, for instance was not one of the good commanders in the Peloponnese War. Churchill often did his historical writing when he was out of office, etc.
7DinadansFriend
To add to the above, "History" has multiple meanings.. being used to describe the actual process of time passing, events occurring and being recorded. The other meanings being, the collected accumulation of writings on the events, and the depth of the analysis of the events in those writings. And then, history as literature, such as "the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," by Gibbon, or "the history of the Crusades (in Three volumes) by Runciman."I feel we need a definition of the of "History" and "winner"in the Adage.
9southernbooklady
>8 Notmel: History must be the study of what remains in the written record.
The "written record" seems to be taking on an expanded meaning as we become irrevocably mired in a digital era, where written records are easy to produce and are simultaneously ephemeral in nature (tweets, facebook posts) and eternal, stored forever on some digital server. Such things are closer to a form of oral history -- immediate, often without context or any attempt at objectivity -- than they are to "written record" and yet they can have an indelible impact on events. They are the current bellweather of social unrest, for example -- a position that used to be held by newspapers and pamphlet writers.
I used to think that history was simply "the study of the past" --focused on the written record to be sure, since that was how "the past" most reliably survived into the present. I had this idea that the goal was to discover "what really happened" in the same way a scientist's goal might be to discover how something "really works." But lately I've come to think of history as the study of the evidence of the past, in context. That "what really happened" is an unreachable ideal, but that an understanding of the past can be built up, layer by layer, as it were, as different theories focusing on different interpretations of evidence (or the lack of evidence) are laid over one another and a more complex, three-dimensional structure emerges.
In such a view all evidence, even "fake" evidence, tells us something -- although not, perhaps, what the creator of the fake evidence meant to tell us. But a study of history must surely take into account the many attempts we make to manipulate the past as well as the attempts we make to preserve it.
The "written record" seems to be taking on an expanded meaning as we become irrevocably mired in a digital era, where written records are easy to produce and are simultaneously ephemeral in nature (tweets, facebook posts) and eternal, stored forever on some digital server. Such things are closer to a form of oral history -- immediate, often without context or any attempt at objectivity -- than they are to "written record" and yet they can have an indelible impact on events. They are the current bellweather of social unrest, for example -- a position that used to be held by newspapers and pamphlet writers.
I used to think that history was simply "the study of the past" --focused on the written record to be sure, since that was how "the past" most reliably survived into the present. I had this idea that the goal was to discover "what really happened" in the same way a scientist's goal might be to discover how something "really works." But lately I've come to think of history as the study of the evidence of the past, in context. That "what really happened" is an unreachable ideal, but that an understanding of the past can be built up, layer by layer, as it were, as different theories focusing on different interpretations of evidence (or the lack of evidence) are laid over one another and a more complex, three-dimensional structure emerges.
In such a view all evidence, even "fake" evidence, tells us something -- although not, perhaps, what the creator of the fake evidence meant to tell us. But a study of history must surely take into account the many attempts we make to manipulate the past as well as the attempts we make to preserve it.
11southernbooklady
>10 Notmel: I tend to shy away from the usual philosophers of history because they tend to have a political ax to grind. The give away is when they use history to tell us about the future. Politicians will frequently do this as well by using a patriotic historical theme to drive a political agenda. (Marx and the Tea Party, for example). This is almost always manipulative and dishonest.
I'm a fan of Jenny Uglow, David Hackett Fischer, Ann Wroe, and Lisa Jardine, off the top of my head. But your comment makes me think of a book I read a couple years ago called The Ghosts of Cannae. Ostensibly a military history of an iconic battle, in context, with plenty of background on the development of classical era military tactics and a fairly pointed overview of Rome's rivalry with Carthage, and yet the book has what might be called "an agenda," or perhaps "a moral." In short, one of the underlying theses the author puts forth is that there was a direct line of causation from the aftermath of this particular battle, and the collapse of the Roman Republic and rise of the Empire. Nor does he shy away from drawing cautionary parallels in our own era.
Clearly he is one of the school of historians that believes the past has something to teach the present. One might even go so far as to say that in illuminating the past, we learn something about ourselves. And I find can't discount this idea. In other words, I thought the author made a good point. And that what was relevant to the modern reader about this ancient battle was not simply that it happened, or how it happened, but how the forces at work around that event are all still very much with us. They are familiar, not exotic, and it is not a wasted effort to approach history not only as a picture of the past, but as something in which we can see our own reflection.
I'm a fan of Jenny Uglow, David Hackett Fischer, Ann Wroe, and Lisa Jardine, off the top of my head. But your comment makes me think of a book I read a couple years ago called The Ghosts of Cannae. Ostensibly a military history of an iconic battle, in context, with plenty of background on the development of classical era military tactics and a fairly pointed overview of Rome's rivalry with Carthage, and yet the book has what might be called "an agenda," or perhaps "a moral." In short, one of the underlying theses the author puts forth is that there was a direct line of causation from the aftermath of this particular battle, and the collapse of the Roman Republic and rise of the Empire. Nor does he shy away from drawing cautionary parallels in our own era.
Clearly he is one of the school of historians that believes the past has something to teach the present. One might even go so far as to say that in illuminating the past, we learn something about ourselves. And I find can't discount this idea. In other words, I thought the author made a good point. And that what was relevant to the modern reader about this ancient battle was not simply that it happened, or how it happened, but how the forces at work around that event are all still very much with us. They are familiar, not exotic, and it is not a wasted effort to approach history not only as a picture of the past, but as something in which we can see our own reflection.
12BruceCoulson
Given how The War Between the States....errr...the American Civil War was portrayed for over a century (and still is, in some places), it's incorrect to say that 'history is written by the victors'. That's usually true... but not always.
How groups react to 'Great Events' is determined by 'Great People' (or the lack thereof).
Carl Sandberg once suggested that a history should be written on Lincoln dealing only with the years before he became President, on the grounds that by the time Lincoln became President, his course and decisions could be predicted by what kind of person he'd become. I believe this can be expanded to groups/nations; that the past can be guide to how they react to the present.
How groups react to 'Great Events' is determined by 'Great People' (or the lack thereof).
Carl Sandberg once suggested that a history should be written on Lincoln dealing only with the years before he became President, on the grounds that by the time Lincoln became President, his course and decisions could be predicted by what kind of person he'd become. I believe this can be expanded to groups/nations; that the past can be guide to how they react to the present.
13DinadansFriend
Perhaps as we have heard that history , the study of past events, as differentiated from the process of recorded time passing we may come to a position between social science and art, to look to the verb we have all used, to state that "History is neither science or accumulation of data, or an "Art" the analysis of the assembly but a third form of endeavour, a "Study" that is a mingled but not confused method of analysis?
14danharness
Before letting this thread pass on into its own history, I thought I might add a few thoughts of my own. I had avoided doing so because they do not directly address eschator83’s original questions. But nobody up to this point has really touched on the place of philosophy of history (or historical theory) as a subdiscipline of both history and philosophy. I have always been interested in the ways in which practicing historians either confront it or (more commonly, I think) avoid confronting it. Most graduate history programs, for example, require coursework in historiography and/or historical methodology, but much less often in historical theory. My own previous program listed three basic courses. The first, historical methods, had once been required, but was by then optional, although still offered. The second, historiography, was required. The third, historical theory, was introduced as a required course, but they never actually got around to offering it, and I notice that it is no longer in the catalog.
As I understand it (and as previous posters have noted) the field itself is concerned with concepts such as the nature of historical knowledge, the possibility of scientific history (objectivity vs. subjectivity), and the role of narrative in history. Anyone who is interested in exploring the field further ought to look at Mary Fulbrook’s densely written Historical Theory. There is a much briefer introduction in a pamphlet issued by the American Historical Association nearly 50 years ago: Elements of Historical Thinking by Paul L. Ward. And for the various ways in which American historians have confronted these issues, there is the long but excellent That Noble Dream by Peter Novick. These, at least, are three works that I am familiar with; doubtless there are many others which could be mentioned.
As I understand it (and as previous posters have noted) the field itself is concerned with concepts such as the nature of historical knowledge, the possibility of scientific history (objectivity vs. subjectivity), and the role of narrative in history. Anyone who is interested in exploring the field further ought to look at Mary Fulbrook’s densely written Historical Theory. There is a much briefer introduction in a pamphlet issued by the American Historical Association nearly 50 years ago: Elements of Historical Thinking by Paul L. Ward. And for the various ways in which American historians have confronted these issues, there is the long but excellent That Noble Dream by Peter Novick. These, at least, are three works that I am familiar with; doubtless there are many others which could be mentioned.
