wrong_turn
the chosen one
well i know some of you are too lazy to go to the resources section so i will add it in for you. i won't put an attatchment. some of you can't be bothered sometimes like me.
do what you want with it (hint to asylum: stickie it
). there will be more to come, such as enlightenment,: Von Ranke.
try not to spam on this thread.
Post-Modernists (keith Jenkins) based on hayden white
Definition of Post modernism
There are nine exerts that are from Hayden White. Therefore leaving it to ambiguity and open to bias. It may have parts that are cut out, which were of importance.
“this definition, like all definitions of this type, is obviously not definitive. In fact t is not really a definition at all, being more like a summary of some the ‘key’ areas discussed”
Therefore, there is no true definition in relation to the post-modernist school of thought. And even if there are true definitions of post-modernism, there is no definitive definition.
‘history is content’ that is ‘as much as found, and… is constructed by present-minded, positioned workers(historians)’.
History in Post-modernist terms is constructed, as to only view content. Though, as much as other schools of history, history seems to be made-up information that only construct the history, from the present.
‘that past, appreciated by historians, is never the past itself, but a past evidenced by its remaining and accessible traces and transformed into histiograpghy through a series of theoretically and methologiacally disparate procedures such as ideological positionings’.
‘historical construction can be seen as taking place entirely in the present…historical work can be admitted without the past…entering into it-except rhetorically.
Classical Historians: Herodotus and Thucydides
The classical historians basically delved in myth and reality, or what could be passed off as real. This is what homer tried to do for the most part. Though his writings are still considered as written history, it may not be considered as all real. As Herodotus has said, ‘it was not as appealing for epic poetry as the only one he used.’ Homer knew that there was no such person as Helen of troy, yet he placed it in to make it easier for the reader. Therefore history was used for its entertainment purposes. In classical history, there are a few brief summaries on public events. However the people who were written about were not that of society, it were the people who held the power. Though one must understand the context of which they were writing. It was a time of monarchy and tyranny. It was also a dominance of the military, when power was guaranteed by the efficiency of one’s forces.
Classical historians lacked depth in their analysis of their historical sources and tended to emphasise on oral tradition. It was a narrated history which as aforementioned was based on oral sources. It attempted to show how great leaders performed and how future leaders should imitate, it “sought to inspire the read to shun or more often to evaluate the actions of the villains and hero’s of his beloved Rome.” Warren
Thucydides:
Thucydides was an Athenian general who wrote during the Peloponnesian war. He was exiled to Sparta. Due to being brought to the culture of Sparta and also the Athenian culture, he gained an understanding of both cultures. Therefore, his viewpoint as a historian would be more valid, or will have less bias. His type of history writing was focused mostly on the military, due to his writing during the time of war. He showed constant discipline in his writing. He provided liberal amounts of detail and information about the Peloponnesian war. He wanted to provide the utmost accuracy in his writings in an attempt to provide a proper history of what happened. He drew its significance from eh war, due to having future leaders learning from past wars.
Thucydides entered the minds of important figures in an attempt to interpret what they thought. This was done through interpreting their speeches. However, this would in turn create biased and unjust views from the people in which he tried to interpret through entering their mind.
His purpose was to use psychological steps to process the information onto paper. This was in an attempt to tell the truth, and to reveal aspects of humanity.
Herodotus:
Herodotus lived in a contest where the nation-state was divided. However, they still had the same culture, and also shared the same language.
He tried to use primary sources to produce hypothesis. These hypotheses turned out to be quite unstructured and he tried to distinguish between myth and reality. He claimed that his oral sources of which his written history was based had been tested. However there is no such evidence of this occurring. His written history seems to be mainly focused on the details of great deeds than the norm of hat was occurring. Therefore it was used to usually glorify a figure.
His aim in writing his history was not only to write accurate histories for future generations, but also he was basing it on “aitie’ which means to blame. So therefore he was finding causes to why certain events came to occur.
Relativitists: Carr
History would not be worth writing or reading if it had no meaningThe whole purpose of writing history is for us to read about the past. The past is a place of which we cannot travel back to. Therefore what is written now is of utmost importance. It is our portal to the context of the author. It is more important to analyze of which situation the author had written from, than the actual text of which he wrote. In knowing where they came from, one can then derive the possible angle that they would have written from. So this would then be the meaning; knowing at what angle the text was written.
‘Historian’s job to identify possible alternative courses of action to the ones individuals eventually took, and to judge their behaviour accordingly’The historian can see the whole overview of situations since they have known what the eventual consequences of the actions tuned out to be. So the historian’s job is to analyze the decision of the individual in question, and evaluate using the sources, whether it was the desired outcome.
Carr argued that theory had to be used in explaining the past, and that describing the conscious motives and desires of the actors in history was not enough by itself to account for what they did.In theory, everything on paper would be believed to have worked, in theory communism works, but in reality it crumbled. So when a historian evaluates the past, one has to consider the personalities of the time which may have had a considerable effect on society no matter what the decision. It is sometimes quite difficult to realize the degree in which our decisions could become, and this is what each is accounted for in history.
History is in fact subject to sufficient regularities to make it a serious study, though these regularities are form time to time interrupted or upset by extraneous elements.History is like many time periods that are differential only by extraneous elements. Though they may seem similar in each time period, yes they are similar in what happened, but there are major events that separate each one.
Personality had some influence on the way things happened, though Carr still insisted that it had little influence on the overall trend of development.
Personality has a lot to do with development of history. It plays a pivotal role in what happens, particular in making decisions. Personalities provide the factors of what might or could have happened. It could be sometimes quite unpredictable.
History is practical or theoretical. Carr’s formative intellectual years were spent not in the ivory tower of academia but in the practical diplomatic service.Carr did not spend the major part of his working life as a historian. He had more to do with being a columnist than a historian. However, as he wrote, he developed the thinking process of a historian. So due to this, he was thinking more on the practical side of history rather than the theoretical side. He thought differently, and a major factor in history is having a different perspective or judgment.
Why should knowledge of where I came from tell me where I am going to?Though people think that knowing our past helps us make better choices for our future; however, this can be argued for the truth that is within. Severity of current situations may make us believe that the choices that we are making are making in the present are different to those that we made in the past. Therefore, in the end, they are not learnt from.
Function of historians was to puncture myths, not create them.
Historians purposefully try to make judgments as accurately as possible to the real fact of their assumption. However, it is not their role to add extra parts to a myth.
All that historians can do is to generalize and attempt to find patterns that make a reasonable fit with the historical evidence; but they cannot use these generalizations and patterns to predict the future.All that a historian is capable in other words is to just generally explain what has happened and what is happening. But they do not extend their thoughts to the future. that is like a forbidden motive. A historian only comments on things that have happened, not the prediction of the future.
Process of writing and research in Carr’s view one of continuous interaction between hypotheses and evidence. His account of the process of research and writing as simultaneous rather than sequential was to some extent a reflection of his own personal habits.‘How disorderly’ ‘seemingly random scribblings on pieces of paper of varying sizes, all in no obvious order.’ ‘Age of word processor this seems very primitive.’ ‘Orderly working habits of great historian Edward Gibbon.’ ‘Nevertheless, it does not seem to have been all that unusual.’
In this quote, it seemingly attacks for the most part. It criticizes his tardiness, and his inability to organize himself. Therefore it implies that the notes that Carr had written may have been intended for a different article rather than the one it is used for. However, in the end the writer has explained that it was indeed not as unusual compared to other historians.
General principle described by Carr most historians would recognize, and has a great deal to recommend.This quote explains his professionalism as a historian. Though he is not accredited as a historian, he can be recognized as a historian in a sense that everyone too can as well.
well bosers, i hope this helps everyone out a bit
do what you want with it (hint to asylum: stickie it
). there will be more to come, such as enlightenment,: Von Ranke.try not to spam on this thread.
Post-Modernists (keith Jenkins) based on hayden white
Definition of Post modernism
There are nine exerts that are from Hayden White. Therefore leaving it to ambiguity and open to bias. It may have parts that are cut out, which were of importance.
“this definition, like all definitions of this type, is obviously not definitive. In fact t is not really a definition at all, being more like a summary of some the ‘key’ areas discussed”
Therefore, there is no true definition in relation to the post-modernist school of thought. And even if there are true definitions of post-modernism, there is no definitive definition.
‘history is content’ that is ‘as much as found, and… is constructed by present-minded, positioned workers(historians)’.
History in Post-modernist terms is constructed, as to only view content. Though, as much as other schools of history, history seems to be made-up information that only construct the history, from the present.
‘that past, appreciated by historians, is never the past itself, but a past evidenced by its remaining and accessible traces and transformed into histiograpghy through a series of theoretically and methologiacally disparate procedures such as ideological positionings’.
‘historical construction can be seen as taking place entirely in the present…historical work can be admitted without the past…entering into it-except rhetorically.
Classical Historians: Herodotus and Thucydides
The classical historians basically delved in myth and reality, or what could be passed off as real. This is what homer tried to do for the most part. Though his writings are still considered as written history, it may not be considered as all real. As Herodotus has said, ‘it was not as appealing for epic poetry as the only one he used.’ Homer knew that there was no such person as Helen of troy, yet he placed it in to make it easier for the reader. Therefore history was used for its entertainment purposes. In classical history, there are a few brief summaries on public events. However the people who were written about were not that of society, it were the people who held the power. Though one must understand the context of which they were writing. It was a time of monarchy and tyranny. It was also a dominance of the military, when power was guaranteed by the efficiency of one’s forces.
Classical historians lacked depth in their analysis of their historical sources and tended to emphasise on oral tradition. It was a narrated history which as aforementioned was based on oral sources. It attempted to show how great leaders performed and how future leaders should imitate, it “sought to inspire the read to shun or more often to evaluate the actions of the villains and hero’s of his beloved Rome.” Warren
Thucydides:
Thucydides was an Athenian general who wrote during the Peloponnesian war. He was exiled to Sparta. Due to being brought to the culture of Sparta and also the Athenian culture, he gained an understanding of both cultures. Therefore, his viewpoint as a historian would be more valid, or will have less bias. His type of history writing was focused mostly on the military, due to his writing during the time of war. He showed constant discipline in his writing. He provided liberal amounts of detail and information about the Peloponnesian war. He wanted to provide the utmost accuracy in his writings in an attempt to provide a proper history of what happened. He drew its significance from eh war, due to having future leaders learning from past wars.
Thucydides entered the minds of important figures in an attempt to interpret what they thought. This was done through interpreting their speeches. However, this would in turn create biased and unjust views from the people in which he tried to interpret through entering their mind.
His purpose was to use psychological steps to process the information onto paper. This was in an attempt to tell the truth, and to reveal aspects of humanity.
Herodotus:
Herodotus lived in a contest where the nation-state was divided. However, they still had the same culture, and also shared the same language.
He tried to use primary sources to produce hypothesis. These hypotheses turned out to be quite unstructured and he tried to distinguish between myth and reality. He claimed that his oral sources of which his written history was based had been tested. However there is no such evidence of this occurring. His written history seems to be mainly focused on the details of great deeds than the norm of hat was occurring. Therefore it was used to usually glorify a figure.
His aim in writing his history was not only to write accurate histories for future generations, but also he was basing it on “aitie’ which means to blame. So therefore he was finding causes to why certain events came to occur.
Relativitists: Carr
History would not be worth writing or reading if it had no meaningThe whole purpose of writing history is for us to read about the past. The past is a place of which we cannot travel back to. Therefore what is written now is of utmost importance. It is our portal to the context of the author. It is more important to analyze of which situation the author had written from, than the actual text of which he wrote. In knowing where they came from, one can then derive the possible angle that they would have written from. So this would then be the meaning; knowing at what angle the text was written.
‘Historian’s job to identify possible alternative courses of action to the ones individuals eventually took, and to judge their behaviour accordingly’The historian can see the whole overview of situations since they have known what the eventual consequences of the actions tuned out to be. So the historian’s job is to analyze the decision of the individual in question, and evaluate using the sources, whether it was the desired outcome.
Carr argued that theory had to be used in explaining the past, and that describing the conscious motives and desires of the actors in history was not enough by itself to account for what they did.In theory, everything on paper would be believed to have worked, in theory communism works, but in reality it crumbled. So when a historian evaluates the past, one has to consider the personalities of the time which may have had a considerable effect on society no matter what the decision. It is sometimes quite difficult to realize the degree in which our decisions could become, and this is what each is accounted for in history.
History is in fact subject to sufficient regularities to make it a serious study, though these regularities are form time to time interrupted or upset by extraneous elements.History is like many time periods that are differential only by extraneous elements. Though they may seem similar in each time period, yes they are similar in what happened, but there are major events that separate each one.
Personality had some influence on the way things happened, though Carr still insisted that it had little influence on the overall trend of development.
Personality has a lot to do with development of history. It plays a pivotal role in what happens, particular in making decisions. Personalities provide the factors of what might or could have happened. It could be sometimes quite unpredictable.
History is practical or theoretical. Carr’s formative intellectual years were spent not in the ivory tower of academia but in the practical diplomatic service.Carr did not spend the major part of his working life as a historian. He had more to do with being a columnist than a historian. However, as he wrote, he developed the thinking process of a historian. So due to this, he was thinking more on the practical side of history rather than the theoretical side. He thought differently, and a major factor in history is having a different perspective or judgment.
Why should knowledge of where I came from tell me where I am going to?Though people think that knowing our past helps us make better choices for our future; however, this can be argued for the truth that is within. Severity of current situations may make us believe that the choices that we are making are making in the present are different to those that we made in the past. Therefore, in the end, they are not learnt from.
Function of historians was to puncture myths, not create them.
Historians purposefully try to make judgments as accurately as possible to the real fact of their assumption. However, it is not their role to add extra parts to a myth.
All that historians can do is to generalize and attempt to find patterns that make a reasonable fit with the historical evidence; but they cannot use these generalizations and patterns to predict the future.All that a historian is capable in other words is to just generally explain what has happened and what is happening. But they do not extend their thoughts to the future. that is like a forbidden motive. A historian only comments on things that have happened, not the prediction of the future.
Process of writing and research in Carr’s view one of continuous interaction between hypotheses and evidence. His account of the process of research and writing as simultaneous rather than sequential was to some extent a reflection of his own personal habits.‘How disorderly’ ‘seemingly random scribblings on pieces of paper of varying sizes, all in no obvious order.’ ‘Age of word processor this seems very primitive.’ ‘Orderly working habits of great historian Edward Gibbon.’ ‘Nevertheless, it does not seem to have been all that unusual.’
In this quote, it seemingly attacks for the most part. It criticizes his tardiness, and his inability to organize himself. Therefore it implies that the notes that Carr had written may have been intended for a different article rather than the one it is used for. However, in the end the writer has explained that it was indeed not as unusual compared to other historians.
General principle described by Carr most historians would recognize, and has a great deal to recommend.This quote explains his professionalism as a historian. Though he is not accredited as a historian, he can be recognized as a historian in a sense that everyone too can as well.
this is generally hwo you should answer questions, and i used his method.techie said:
well bosers, i hope this helps everyone out a bit