Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2019, History, Globalisation and Relations in Africa
These are very brief notes on the work of Richard Sorabji, Karl Löwith, Arnaldo Momigliano, and Hayden White. The goal is to summarize some of the main contributions of each author to the study of historiography and historical consciousness. Questions tackled include: Did Greeks, Jews, and Christians have alternate views of history--or of time, for that matter? How do conceptions of history relate to theories of time? Is the historian ever responsible for thinking about the philosophy of time? Or are the philosophy of time and (the philosophy of) history two distinct fields of inquiry?
The familiar challenges to historiographical knowledge turn on epistemological concerns having to do with the unobservability of historical events, or with the problem of establishing a sufficiently strong inferential connection between evidence and the historiographical claim one wishes to convert from a true belief into knowledge. This paper argues that these challenges miss a deeper problem, viz., the lack of obvious truth-makers for historiographical claims. The metaphysical challenge to historiogra-phy is that reality does not appear to cooperate in our cognitive endeavours by providing truth-makers for claims about historical entities and events. Setting out this less familiar, but more fundamental, challenge to the very possibility of historiography is the first aim of this paper. The various ways in which this challenge might be met are then set out, including ontologically inflationary appeals to abstract objects of various kinds, or to " block " theories of time. The paper closes with the articulation of an ontologically parsimonious solution to the metaphysical challenge to historiography. The cost of this approach is a revision to standard theories of truth. The central claim here is that the standard theories of truth have mistaken distinct causes of truth for truth itself. This mistake leads to distorted expectations regarding truth-makers for historio-graphical claims. The truth-makers of historiographical claims are not so much the historical events themselves (for they do not exist) but atemporal modal facts about the order of things of which those events were a part. Keywords historiography – knowledge – truth – truth-makers – real relations – time – abstract objects
Bhuban Kumar sabar
A HISTORY OF HISTORIOGRAPHY: A REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF THE MODES OF WRITING HISTORY FROM ANTIQUITY TO CONTEMPORARY2019 •
Historiography is the art and science of writing history. For a deep understanding of history and the past, it is imperative to discover many aspects such as process, method, ideology, and intention-of history-writing of a given period. Thus, a historical trajectory of various ways of history-writing enables us to understand the past and history as textual artefacts. By examining the various historiographies of different periods of history, we can delve deep to uncover the nexus between history as the reconstruction of the past and history as it really happened. Moreover, the knowledge of various historiographical traditions can reveal the works of historians of different ages in a new perspective by penetrating many buried meanings of history and the past as well. A survey, comparison and contrastive analysis of various historiographical traditions will enrich our critical understanding of history and the past.
This paper extends the concepts delineated in our earlier paper 'Historiography by Objectives: A new approach for the study of history within the framework of the proposed Twenty-first Century school of Historiography' and uses them to enunciate the core principles which we believe will form a part of the proposed Twenty-first century school of Historiography. This paper therefore strives to provide the vehicular platform upon which the objectives set forth in the aforesaid paper should be ideally nurtured and furthered. This paper additionally strives to buttress and substantiate our proposals with further arguments. The Twenty-first century school of historiography, it must be stated at the very outset, does not stem from any kind of a rebellious, a contrarian or a recalcitrant approach but intends to ensure that the field is suitably modernized keeping in mind the requirements of the Twenty-first century without jettisoning appreciable or profitable aspects of existing approaches. This paper attempts, at the same time to steer clear of the perils and pitfalls of postmodernism and intellectual nerdism and forge a new trajectory altogether. This approach also seeks to be as commodious and all-encompassing as possible by proactively embracing as many existing approaches as possible except dour and anachronistic ones, and others that have outlived their utility. It also seeks to formulate dialectical approaches in all facets and endeavours. We also argue that this is not only because all existing approaches are inadequate to cater to the rapidly changing requirements of the Twenty-First Century but also because we are already at the thin end of the wedge and existing approaches are inevitably fraught with unsavoury consequences, and will throw up counter-reactions in the longer term. As noted in our earlier papers, dialectical approaches and approaches based on critical analysis and scientific method would be the key to grappling with the sobering realities and the changed requirements of the Twenty-first century and would be the keystone to further progress across varied disciplines. This paper also emphasizes the proactive aspect of historiography, as this is at the core of all efforts to make it a meaningful and a modern discipline. This paper also delineates the social duties and functions of a historian and reinforces his role and duties in ushering in rapid social and cultural change and expediting scientific progress across disciplines. 'Historiography by Objectives' and other attendant approaches, first mooted in the aforesaid paper, continue, of course, to be an inalienable part of the overall proposals of this paper.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
A theory of historiography as a pre-science1993 •
Humanities Core Handbook: Animals, People and Power 2020-2021
Approaching Historiography2020 •
Rethinking History
An Old Question Raised Again: Is Historiography Art or Science? (Response to Iggers)2000 •
The Politics of History as a School Subject in Hong Kong, 1960s-2000 (doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong))
Chapter 2: Historiographical Discussion2000 •
2022 •
Michael Antolović, „The History of Historiography as a Form of Disciplinary Self-Reflection. In Memoriam: Georg G. Iggers (1926 - 2017)”, Moving the Social. Joural of Social History and the History of Social Movements, Vol. 66 (2021), 125 -142.
The History of Historiography as a Form of Disciplinary Self-ReflectionHistory and Theory
The Commonplaces of "Revision" and Their Implications for Historiographical Understanding2007 •
History Australia
Two views of the history of historiography and the nature of history2007 •
History and theory
Comparative Historiography: Problems and Perspectives1999 •