History: The Study of the Subjective and Unimportant

[Philosophy Now]

Ben Adams wants to humanise history.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/88/Hist ... nimportant

[spike]

The caption introducing this article is "Ben Adams wants to humanise history."

Well, I think history is more humanized than be believes.

Karl Popper asked if History has any meaning. He could very well have asked if History has any sustainability. What has made History sustainable is that along the way it has been humanized by subjectivity. And without subjectivity History would probably be meaningless. And probably we wouldn't learn from History if we didn't approach it more subjectively than objectively.

The subjectivity of History has been a liberal enterprise. The objectivity of History is a conservative one. Edmond Burke, a conservative philosopher, saw History through the prism of objectivity. John Locke saw History through the prism of subjectivity. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, two of the most influence and liberating documents in history, were born of subjective history. The UN Charter, which binds the world, was also born of subjective history.

The subjectivity and humanizing of History has been occurring for centuries. Ben Adams mentions the Holocaust. I think the Holocaust solidified the prominence of subjective history over objective history. Objective history didn't entrench Human Rights in the UN Charter. It was subjecting of the Holocaust, which was the worst violation of human rights in history, that did that. It has been subjective history that has slowly been eliminating the authoritarian regimes around the world.


George Orwell's book "1984" was a product of objective history. Fortunately that is not how History has unfolded.

[tbieter]

The author has history, not journalism, in his educational history.http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/ben-adams/19/792/609 I'll have to reread the article. It seems that he ignores history as a methodology.

[spike]

The author has history, not journalism, in his educational history.http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/ben-adams/19/792/609 I'll have to reread the article. It seems that he ignores history as a methodology.

I don't understand your point. The author took history and he is a journalist.

[tbieter]

The author has history, not journalism, in his educational history.http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/ben-adams/19/792/609 I'll have to reread the article. It seems that he ignores history as a methodology.

I don't understand your point. The author took history and he is a journalist.

My point is trivial.

[chaz wyman]

The caption introducing this article is "Ben Adams wants to humanise history."

Well, I think history is more humanized than be believes.

Karl Popper asked if History has any meaning. He could very well have asked if History has any sustainability. What has made History sustainable is that along the way it has been humanized by subjectivity. And without subjectivity History would probably be meaningless. And probably we wouldn't learn from History if we didn't approach it more subjectively than objectively.

The subjectivity of History has been a liberal enterprise. The objectivity of History is a conservative one. Edmond Burke, a conservative philosopher, saw History through the prism of objectivity. John Locke saw History through the prism of subjectivity. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, two of the most influence and liberating documents in history, were born of subjective history. The UN Charter, which binds the world, was also born of subjective history.

The subjectivity and humanizing of History has been occurring for centuries. Ben Adams mentions the Holocaust. I think the Holocaust solidified the prominence of subjective history over objective history. Objective history didn't entrench Human Rights in the UN Charter. It was subjecting of the Holocaust, which was the worst violation of human rights in history, that did that. It has been subjective history that has slowly been eliminating the authoritarian regimes around the world.


George Orwell's book "1984" was a product of objective history. Fortunately that is not how History has unfolded.

You have many strange ideas.

1984 was not in any sense History, it was science fiction, nor way it in any sense objective.
Maybe you are thinking of another of his books?


There was no doubt that Popper used historical knowledge in his writing, but Popper was not a historian and split much ink on an attack of Historicism. It is this in par that the article attacks also. The discipline of History would never accept Popper's Open Society as a work of history - that is the point the article is making.

Mainstream History has expunged itself of any critical edge. It pretends a false objectivity and this results in the validation of past horrors. Were such a history to be written of the 20thC, WW2 would have to be portrayed from the POV of the supporters of Hitler with the calm cool reasons for the justification of the holocaust in the eyes of the Reich with as much balance as the reasons why the Allies thought it important to crush the German state. History gives fresh voice to the evils of the past.
This is exactly the sort of history that is often produced for time past when the sting of evil is not so fresh. In this way History gives lip-service and excuses the crimes of the past; and validates its monsters uncritically. All objections are slaughtered on the altar of balance and objectivity.

[chaz wyman]

The author has history, not journalism, in his educational history.http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/ben-adams/19/792/609 I'll have to reread the article. It seems that he ignores history as a methodology.

Speaking as an historian, he is making an important an valid claim. If he errs it is because he does not go far enough.