G
Giggly_Giraffe
Guest
Is history opinions based on fact or facts that take into account opinions?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Probably both? The question is super broad.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
The answer is only as small as your assumptions.Is history opinions based on fact or facts that take into account opinions?
What exactly is a fact?
How do you know your dad actually is your dad for example?
If that is fraught how much more so history written by the winners?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
History itself is objective. The goal of historians is to be as objective as possible in relaying that history, but subjectivity often characterizes their accounts.
G
Giggly_Giraffe
Guest
How can we learn from history if so much subjectivity has been injected into the written account?History itself is objective. The goal of historians is to be as objective as possible in relaying that history, but subjectivity often characterizes their accounts.
G
GratefulFred
Guest
IMO, History is subjective. All History is filtered by each reporter, thus it is subjective.
It is impossible to accurately convey all that occurred. And even if that was possible extremely few people would read it all and comprehend it all. And perhaps the most important question - WHY - generates an answer that is subjective.
That part of History that answers Who, What, When, Where, and How is fairly objective, but certain characters and events are left out or understated in order to focus on the critical points according to the author’s goal.
Those of us who have read more than one book on any part of history, know that we learn more with each new book read. Some authors disagree. Some seem to mislead in deference to achieving their goal.
All that said, most Histories, albeit incomplete, are generally accepted as being objective enough to be reliable gain a better, albeit incomplete understanding. IMO. Read more than one book to get understanding.
It is impossible to accurately convey all that occurred. And even if that was possible extremely few people would read it all and comprehend it all. And perhaps the most important question - WHY - generates an answer that is subjective.
That part of History that answers Who, What, When, Where, and How is fairly objective, but certain characters and events are left out or understated in order to focus on the critical points according to the author’s goal.
Those of us who have read more than one book on any part of history, know that we learn more with each new book read. Some authors disagree. Some seem to mislead in deference to achieving their goal.
All that said, most Histories, albeit incomplete, are generally accepted as being objective enough to be reliable gain a better, albeit incomplete understanding. IMO. Read more than one book to get understanding.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
It’s not always easy. One of the things that I do, even when reading modern news reporting, is to try to get “source material.” If someone is describing what this or that world leader said or is trying to do, try to get a transcript of that. If someone tells you that St. Augustine denied the Real Presence, get ahold of St. Augustine source material and see if they are correct (which they are not!). Other than that, it is also helpful to consult multiple historical accounts to see what is coherent.How can we learn from history if so much subjectivity has been injected into the written account?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.