'To remain ignorant about what happened before you were born, is to remain forever a child' - Cicero
What is history? When the God created the world with it simultaneously the birth of time took place. From the womb of time flows all history. History is the recording of past events or to be precise an interpretation of the past events. Many a times we fail to draw this distinction. The subject of history has attracted the attention of many great thinkers and philosophers for centuries. The importance of the subject cannot be denied. However, the question of objective history remains as controversial today as it was during the time of Herodotus and Thucydides.
By objective history one means that is history a factual account of what actually happened in the past or is it just a subjective evaluation of the past events on part of the historian. Can history claim itself to be a purely scientific discourse? If yes then on what grounds it can claim to be a science? If not then what productive function can history perform if it is merely a subjective interpretation of the past?
Lipold von Ranke once summoned all the historians and asked them to work on a major project. Their task was to record the past 'as it actually happened'. The project seemed possible to many, for others it was doomed to fail. Positivists have always been of the view that history can follow a scientific method and a critical approach can help us arrive at the truth which is 'out there'. JS Mill famously argued that historical laws are discoverable by inductive reason. History unfolds itself by showing regular patterns and follows certain laws. Therefore, if a historian remains loyal to such laws in recording of past events he/she will end up arriving at the actual truth. Psychological laws are also considered to be part of historical laws that are discoverable by human reason.
Positivists have always been accused of over simplification with regards to their theory of history. There is a major difference between a historian and a scientist. A scientist studies phenomena from the outside whereas a historian studies it from the inside. B. Corce was of the view that history is subjective because historian himself is always present in his construction. James Baldwin aptly summed up the position in these words, 'People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them'. Albert Camus says in 'The Rebel',
''Man cannot grasp the totality of history since he lives in the midst of this totality. History as an entirety can only exist in the eyes of the observer outside it and outside the world.''
I happen to agree with this view. Objective history is an impossibility. The question of objective history is intimately tied to historical absolute or the ultimate telos of history. Such an absolute can only be conceived either from the outside or after the end of history. The suggestion that we can arrive at objective truth by studying the psychological motives of the people can even be dismissed by use of common sense. At times, we find it difficult to know the exact motives of our close family members and friends. If knowing the motives of our loved ones is difficult then imagine the impossibility of knowing the motives of people who lived thousands of years ago before us. Perhaps history is nothing more than a reconstruction of our past tradition by 'intellectual empathy' for our forefathers.
What is history? When the God created the world with it simultaneously the birth of time took place. From the womb of time flows all history. History is the recording of past events or to be precise an interpretation of the past events. Many a times we fail to draw this distinction. The subject of history has attracted the attention of many great thinkers and philosophers for centuries. The importance of the subject cannot be denied. However, the question of objective history remains as controversial today as it was during the time of Herodotus and Thucydides.
By objective history one means that is history a factual account of what actually happened in the past or is it just a subjective evaluation of the past events on part of the historian. Can history claim itself to be a purely scientific discourse? If yes then on what grounds it can claim to be a science? If not then what productive function can history perform if it is merely a subjective interpretation of the past?
Lipold von Ranke once summoned all the historians and asked them to work on a major project. Their task was to record the past 'as it actually happened'. The project seemed possible to many, for others it was doomed to fail. Positivists have always been of the view that history can follow a scientific method and a critical approach can help us arrive at the truth which is 'out there'. JS Mill famously argued that historical laws are discoverable by inductive reason. History unfolds itself by showing regular patterns and follows certain laws. Therefore, if a historian remains loyal to such laws in recording of past events he/she will end up arriving at the actual truth. Psychological laws are also considered to be part of historical laws that are discoverable by human reason.
Positivists have always been accused of over simplification with regards to their theory of history. There is a major difference between a historian and a scientist. A scientist studies phenomena from the outside whereas a historian studies it from the inside. B. Corce was of the view that history is subjective because historian himself is always present in his construction. James Baldwin aptly summed up the position in these words, 'People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them'. Albert Camus says in 'The Rebel',
''Man cannot grasp the totality of history since he lives in the midst of this totality. History as an entirety can only exist in the eyes of the observer outside it and outside the world.''
I happen to agree with this view. Objective history is an impossibility. The question of objective history is intimately tied to historical absolute or the ultimate telos of history. Such an absolute can only be conceived either from the outside or after the end of history. The suggestion that we can arrive at objective truth by studying the psychological motives of the people can even be dismissed by use of common sense. At times, we find it difficult to know the exact motives of our close family members and friends. If knowing the motives of our loved ones is difficult then imagine the impossibility of knowing the motives of people who lived thousands of years ago before us. Perhaps history is nothing more than a reconstruction of our past tradition by 'intellectual empathy' for our forefathers.
