Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, they don't!
Non-Idiotic Historiography Text?
- Thread starter Fifty
- Start date
No, they don't!
Heh, you should have been at my defence of my thesis proposal that I did halfway through my PhD.
Analytic philosophy professor: So - what exactly is the point of historical philosophy?
(My supervisor and I exchange glances.)
Me: I might as well ask - what is the point of analytic philosophy?
(Note: I didn't really say that.)
Analytic philosophy professor: So - what exactly is the point of historical philosophy?
(My supervisor and I exchange glances.)
Me: I might as well ask - what is the point of analytic philosophy?
(Note: I didn't really say that.)
Why didn't you? I can't imagine that denigrating one of your thesis committee members' chosen research areas could possibly have any adverse effects.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
To be clear are we talking about books on Historiography, or Historigraphical texts?
What I mean to say is are we talking about books like "The Idea of History"
Or books like "The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives" by Ian Kershaw?
What I mean to say is are we talking about books like "The Idea of History"
Or books like "The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives" by Ian Kershaw?
I expect he's looking for The Idea of History since he's looking at historiography as a field, not as it relates to a given area in time or theme. So most of my knowledge of the discipline would be near useless for his purposes, because the historiography texts I have are all about the classical and Hellenistic era and focus on the historians of the period both contemporary and modern. Not a real good introduction to the field as a whole.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Oh. Well of course they are substandard because nobody writes them. And nobody writes them because nobody needs them. Yes it's a nice academic venture to try and proceed with a theory about what is history, but lets look at who'd potentially want to read that.
1) Historians: In the end, Historians, if they read historiography like this at all, find it interesting but of no use whatsoever. Take R.J. Collingwood. To my knowledge, I have never met a historian who actually attempted to simulate in his mind the thoughts of others, and I have met very few I think, who would ever think that's possible. I enjoyed reading his book, but even I know that's not really what a Historian should or could do. Essentially it boils down to a description and instruction in History, which though we're unable to articulate ourselves, we clearly know how to do already.
2) Philosophers: Philosophers may have a greater interest in and use for such a description and articulation, but ultimately it's a philosophy of a rather obscure matter. Most philosophers aren't particularly interested history, and that is why they are Philosophers, not Historians.
1) Historians: In the end, Historians, if they read historiography like this at all, find it interesting but of no use whatsoever. Take R.J. Collingwood. To my knowledge, I have never met a historian who actually attempted to simulate in his mind the thoughts of others, and I have met very few I think, who would ever think that's possible. I enjoyed reading his book, but even I know that's not really what a Historian should or could do. Essentially it boils down to a description and instruction in History, which though we're unable to articulate ourselves, we clearly know how to do already.
2) Philosophers: Philosophers may have a greater interest in and use for such a description and articulation, but ultimately it's a philosophy of a rather obscure matter. Most philosophers aren't particularly interested history, and that is why they are Philosophers, not Historians.
Similar threads
