Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.myspace.com/t/4030169.aspx?fuseaction=fo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
The efficacy of history - Is objective history attainable?
Firstly, allow me to make a simple distinction for those with only a lay and impartial (or less) interest in history.
History is usually considered an empirical vocation, but that is not true.
The subsidiary historical sciences such as archaeology (while requiring interpretation) are more specifically empirical.
The purpose of the historian is interpretation of facts, formulation of theories on past societies, etc.
The historian is not a mere compilator of facts.
All this is made very clear in 'What is history?' by E.H.
Carr.
Obviously interpretation is a subjective process, the historian is selective in what facts he illustrates and those he omits.
He presents only those facts which are relevant to his argument and thus we have a vast collection of competing theories, each with its own distinct slanting.
The facts which survive are only those which previous historians deemed worth recording, and so anything contradictory or irrelevant to what they wanted to communicate has been irretriveably lost.
So does this elimiate the possibility of an objective 'ultimate history'?
(Acton 1896). Or is it simply a collection of the narratives that (for whatever reason) outlasted the other theories?
What do you think?
|
|
Ollie:
Firstly, allow me to make a simple distinction for those with only a lay and impartial (or less) interest in history.
History is usually considered an empirical vocation, but that is not true.
The subsidiary historical sciences such as archaeology (while requiring interpretation) are more specifically empirical.
The purpose of the historian is interpretation of facts, formulation of theories on past societies, etc.
The historian is not a mere compilator of facts.
All this is made very clear in 'What is history?' by E.H.
Carr.
Obviously interpretation is a subjective process, the historian is selective in what facts he illustrates and those he omits.
He presents only those facts which are relevant to his argument and thus we have a vast collection of competing theories, each with its own distinct slanting.
The facts which survive are only those which previous historians deemed worth recording, and so anything contradictory or irrelevant to what they wanted to communicate has been irretriveably lost.
So does this elimiate the possibility of an objective 'ultimate history'?
(Acton 1896). Or is it simply a collection of the narratives that (for whatever reason) outlasted the other theories?
What do you think?
We can't even get an objective view of the present, of course an objective view of histor is not possible.
|
|
|
Not sure why it's important that history be "objective."
|
|
Ollie:
Firstly, allow me to make a simple distinction for those with only a lay and impartial (or less) interest in history.
History is usually considered an empirical vocation, but that is not true.
The subsidiary historical sciences such as archaeology (while requiring interpretation) are more specifically empirical.
The purpose of the historian is interpretation of facts, formulation of theories on past societies, etc.
The historian is not a mere compilator of facts.
All this is made very clear in 'What is history?' by E.H.
Carr.
Obviously interpretation is a subjective process, the historian is selective in what facts he illustrates and those he omits.
He presents only those facts which are relevant to his argument and thus we have a vast collection of competing theories, each with its own distinct slanting.
The facts which survive are only those which previous historians deemed worth recording, and so anything contradictory or irrelevant to what they wanted to communicate has been irretriveably lost.
So does this elimiate the possibility of an objective 'ultimate history'?
(Acton 1896). Or is it simply a collection of the narratives that (for whatever reason) outlasted the other theories?
What do you think?
I always wanted to know what they taught in England about what we call our "American Revolution." Our Heros might be called rebels for you and so on AND after reading some of the reasons why we went for independence is nothing like what we are going through now.
We Americans also forget that we couldn't have done it without the French- something to think about when putting America down for helping the people of other tyranical countries.
(not saying England was tyranical)
Is our history objective?
I don't think so.
|
|
Ollie:
Firstly, allow me to make a simple distinction for those with only a lay and impartial (or less) interest in history.
History is usually considered an empirical vocation, but that is not true.
The subsidiary historical sciences such as archaeology (while requiring interpretation) are more specifically empirical.
The purpose of the historian is interpretation of facts, formulation of theories on past societies, etc.
The historian is not a mere compilator of facts.
All this is made very clear in 'What is history?' by E.H.
Carr.
Obviously interpretation is a subjective process, the historian is selective in what facts he illustrates and those he omits.
He presents only those facts which are relevant to his argument and thus we have a vast collection of competing theories, each with its own distinct slanting.
The facts which survive are only those which previous historians deemed worth recording, and so anything contradictory or irrelevant to what they wanted to communicate has been irretriveably lost.
So does this elimiate the possibility of an objective 'ultimate history'?
(Acton 1896). Or is it simply a collection of the narratives that (for whatever reason) outlasted the other theories?
What do you think?
Objective history is both possible and desireable.
|
|
Ollie:
Firstly, allow me to make a simple distinction for those with only a lay and impartial (or less) interest in history.
History is usually considered an empirical vocation, but that is not true.
The subsidiary historical sciences such as archaeology (while requiring interpretation) are more specifically empirical.
The purpose of the historian is interpretation of facts, formulation of theories on past societies, etc.
The historian is not a mere compilator of facts.
All this is made very clear in 'What is history?' by E.H.
Carr.
Obviously interpretation is a subjective process, the historian is selective in what facts he illustrates and those he omits.
He presents only those facts which are relevant to his argument and thus we have a vast collection of competing theories, each with its own distinct slanting.
The facts which survive are only those which previous historians deemed worth recording, and so anything contradictory or irrelevant to what they wanted to communicate has been irretriveably lost.
So does this elimiate the possibility of an objective 'ultimate history'?
(Acton 1896). Or is it simply a collection of the narratives that (for whatever reason) outlasted the other theories?
What do you think?
Essentially...
There is no such thing as an objsective opinion.
And whoever writtes the history is going to inherantly skew it toward or away from thier opinion.
(people have been known to realize they are slanted and overcompensate)
So...
No, there will never be a completely objective version of history published.
Some might come close...
|
|
Bill:
Objective history is both possible and desireable.
This is intriguing Bill.
But aren't you obligated to specify in some sense how it is possible and why it is desirable?
I'm all ears!
|
|
Greg_en:
Bill:
Objective history is both possible and desireable.
This is intriguing Bill.
But aren't you obligated to specify in some sense how it is possible and why it is desirable?
I'm all ears!
That's exactly what I was going to ask, so thanks, Greg.
I have this belief that you cannot get rid of the causality in history, that it's innately integral;
There is either a causal oversimplification or a causal embellishment/elaboration when portraying historical events.
Thus, there can be no purely "objective history" by this standard.
Bill, if you can dispute this, please let us know your counterpoints.
I'm all ears along with Greg.
|
|
Whereas its true that historians omit facts that are irrelevant to their chosen subject matter, I don't think this necessarily distorts our view of the past.
Every branch of science has to select data relevant to its cause, filtering out and ignoring a great deal of information in the process.
The value judgement lies in deciding what's important in the first place - but even here I think the danger of bias is overblown.
Many have complained that because historians have traditionally focused on the military and political intrigues of the elite that our view of the past is skewered against the life of the common people.
But does focusing on one area equate to distortion in another?
So long as historians realize that they are excluding information, that a given historical narrative is always incomplete and open to further revision, I think we can come to a reasonable amount of objectivity regarding the past.
And then there's common sense: yes, far more has been written about the military prowess and conquests of Rome than of how the typical citizen made it through the day, but few would conclude from this that all the roman did was march off into battle without ever sewing clothes or tilling or field.
For various reasons, Rome's wars have drawn more attention, but historians know and have known this isn't the whole story.
|
|
Brad Garrod:
Ollie:
Firstly, allow me to make a simple distinction for those with only a lay and impartial (or less) interest in history.
History is usually considered an empirical vocation, but that is not true.
The subsidiary historical sciences such as archaeology (while requiring interpretation) are more specifically empirical.
The purpose of the historian is interpretation of facts, formulation of theories on past societies, etc.
The historian is not a mere compilator of facts.
All this is made very clear in 'What is history?' by E.H.
Carr.
Obviously interpretation is a subjective process, the historian is selective in what facts he illustrates and those he omits.
He presents only those facts which are relevant to his argument and thus we have a vast collection of competing theories, each with its own distinct slanting.
The facts which survive are only those which previous historians deemed worth recording, and so anything contradictory or irrelevant to what they wanted to communicate has been irretriveably lost.
So does this elimiate the possibility of an objective 'ultimate history'?
(Acton 1896). Or is it simply a collection of the narratives that (for whatever reason) outlasted the other theories?
What do you think?
I always wanted to know what they taught in England about what we call our "American Revolution." Our Heros might be called rebels for you and so on AND after reading some of the reasons why we went for independence is nothing like what we are going through now.
We Americans also forget that we couldn't have done it without the French- something to think about when putting America down for helping the people of other tyranical countries.
(not saying England was tyranical)
Is our history objective?
I don't think so.
Unfortunately on our particular syllabus American war for independence (the title we were taught) was only briefly looked at.
Surprisingly however it was, like other subjects, taught with a certain impartiality (as far as I can see it), the term rebel or hero is not used in history, although I see what you mean, and I would have to admit that throughout the study there was always the nagging bias towards the british attempting to hold onto their diminishing control.
So yeah, interesting point Brad.
|
|
Bill:
Ollie:
Firstly, allow me to make a simple distinction for those with only a lay and impartial (or less) interest in history.
History is usually considered an empirical vocation, but that is not true.
The subsidiary historical sciences such as archaeology (while requiring interpretation) are more specifically empirical.
The purpose of the historian is interpretation of facts, formulation of theories on past societies, etc.
The historian is not a mere compilator of facts.
All this is made very clear in 'What is history?' by E.H.
Carr.
Obviously interpretation is a subjective process, the historian is selective in what facts he illustrates and those he omits.
He presents only those facts which are relevant to his argument and thus we have a vast collection of competing theories, each with its own distinct slanting.
The facts which survive are only those which previous historians deemed worth recording, and so anything contradictory or irrelevant to what they wanted to communicate has been irretriveably lost.
So does this elimiate the possibility of an objective 'ultimate history'?
(Acton 1896). Or is it simply a collection of the narratives that (for whatever reason) outlasted the other theories?
What do you think?
Objective history is both possible and desireable.
Would you like to expand on that assertion?
|
|
The only differnce between objectivity and subjectivity is "beief." Both objective and subjective are constructions of a larger system.
You can call it what you want.
But, we need to look at the values of history--I thought that history was supposed to teach us, so we didn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
In such a case, objectivity is meaningless because it can only apply at best to the objective meaning of the past.
How can this so-called objectivity be used to teach us how to act in the future, which is choatic and undetrmined.
For history to present itself as objective is to remain stagnant.
|
|
In my country and whole region history is favourite issue among poeple.
All kind of profiles discuss history (intelectuals, workers, janitors, doctors...).
Listening to that stories and reading the books of mainstream historians I concluded that history is, mostly, the instrument of the leading policy in some country.
If the policy get changed, the way of the approach was changing.
Example
Government says - Wining of this war was the crucial thing for all our nation and from now on it shall be the leading star (or something) for all of us in the future.
Some years later government says - This war was very important to us, but we need to face our mistakes that we made in it.
Thats is also the matter of the historical distance, but basicly thats it.
What we can learn from history?
Someone will learn something, someone will learn nothing.
Generaly we can learn that polarity is meaningless, on some level.
|
|
Love Thy Anomie:
The only differnce between objectivity and subjectivity is "beief." Both objective and subjective are constructions of a larger system.
You can call it what you want.
But, we need to look at the values of history--I thought that history was supposed to teach us, so we didn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
In such a case, objectivity is meaningless because it can only apply at best to the objective meaning of the past.
How can this so-called objectivity be used to teach us how to act in the future, which is choatic and undetrmined.
For history to present itself as objective is to remain stagnant.
I think there is something to what you are saying, however,
Firstly, the idea that history is 'supposed' to teach us lessons is naiive and misconstrued.
Historians do not consciously or unconsciously (to the best of my knowledge) set out to leave lessons behind for posterity.
Even if historians did set out with that intention, I cant honestly see how that would enable the lay observer to learn lessons about the past.
For instance if we take the example of pre world war 2 appeasement towards Hitler, primarily the policy of Nevile Chamberlain, the logical lesson to be drawn is that aggressive nations should be dealt with as soon as it becomes evident that their intentions are hostile (and Hitler broke his munich promises among others).
That doesnt sound too contraversial, however you have to take into consideration that firstly appeasement is actually the only workable policy in certain circumstances.
E.g. chamberlain had little choice: britains forces needed time to increase, french policy was also anti war, british public opinion was anti war, there was widespread fear of the menace of bombers, etc.
How can you derive a lesson from this when the supposed mistake was pretty much the only pragmatic option.
The same is for all history.
The point being is by what criteria can you define a lesson from history and equally what criteria says when such lessons can be invoked.
Moreover, even if the value of history was to learn lessons from the past, are you honestly saying that it wouldnt matter whether the history had a firm evidential basis?
You made the problem of objectivity subsidiary to a false premise, which even if true would suggest you think it is better to learn lessons from an essentially arbitrary history.
Anyway to return to my op, what I was really asking is whether an objective history, i.e.
An impartial and all encompassing history, is indeed attainable?
On what grounds do you make this assertion, "The only differnce between objectivity and subjectivity is "beief." Both objective and subjective are constructions of a larger system.
"?
|
|
Speakingmute:
Whereas its true that historians omit facts that are irrelevant to their chosen subject matter, I don't think this necessarily distorts our view of the past.
Every branch of science has to select data relevant to its cause, filtering out and ignoring a great deal of information in the process.
The value judgement lies in deciding what's important in the first place - but even here I think the danger of bias is overblown.
Many have complained that because historians have traditionally focused on the military and political intrigues of the elite that our view of the past is skewered against the life of the common people.
But does focusing on one area equate to distortion in another?
So long as historians realize that they are excluding information, that a given historical narrative is always incomplete and open to further revision, I think we can come to a reasonable amount of objectivity regarding the past.
And then there's common sense: yes, far more has been written about the military prowess and conquests of Rome than of how the typical citizen made it through the day, but few would conclude from this that all the roman did was march off into battle without ever sewing clothes or tilling or field.
For various reasons, Rome's wars have drawn more attention, but historians know and have known this isn't the whole story.
Interesting view point my freind;
However I will have to disagree.
History is evidently not just a mere compilation of facts.
How you put it, it would seem that you have forgotten the critical importance of bias, interpretation, etc.
E.g with military prowess, would there necessary always be a clear picture left in the surviving facts and historys.
Historians with different alleigances and agendas must necesarily be borne in mind.
For instance the roman historians who came to britain gave left some colourful interpretations, usually on the premise that barbarians are effectively inferior, and for propaganda purposes.
The point to remember is that the history is a process of the historian investigating and substantiating his own hypotheses, thus he is compelled out his own tendentiousness to select and synthesise that evidence which he sees fit.
Therefore at the expense of other facts, the omission of which necesitates an incomplete and thus non-objective history.
While I wouldnt go so far to say that history is purely narrative, because it isnt, any reputable book of history is well sourced, indeed the basic facts of history are the 'raw materials' (Carr) of history.
And yes I wouldnt agree that history is completely distorted beyond proportion, but that is just a hunch really.
|
|
|
|