Jump to content
Urch Forums

110 When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we


Erin

Recommended Posts

110 When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

110 When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers.

 

The study of history is an interesting. Some hold that there is no such thing as objective truth in history. They believe that interpretation of events is inevitably tainted by our prejudice and thus all historians are just storytellers. While I agree that interpretation of history involves certain degree of arbitrariness, I dispute the statement "history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit". I shall argue that historians can bring us closer to the truth by reconstructing events based on available evidence.

 

No doubt historical studies are often colored by one's bias and motives. Different people will have different view on the same historical events. This is because we can never know the past directly and hence we have to rely on indirect interpretation of certain evidence. Out of national pride or biases, we might downplay evidence that contradict our view and overemphasize the evidence that favor ours. It's impossible to get a fully fair picture from historians because their prejudice will indubitably slips into their judgment. Take for example, Newton's heat dispute with Leibniz. Newton was a Briton and Leibniz was a German. They fought for the priority of inventing calculus in 17th century. For a century the British scholars featured Newton as the calculus inventor, while German scholars believed that Leibniz was justified to be called as the "father of calculus". No conclusion was made on this issue until a century later. The light came when historians discovered that Newton conceived the idea first before Leibniz, but it was Leibniz who first published his findings. Today Textbooks featured both men as the inventor of Calculus.

 

Another example is holocaust. The number of Jews died in the Hitler’s hands is very hard to estimate. The reason is because we have only indirect evidence and these evidence are incomplete and sometimes, controversial. Jewish scholars will estimate the death tolls higher than some extreme left and right groups. The discrepancy in numbers led some to doubt the veracity of holocaust. They charge that biased historians are misrepresenting available evidence and hyperbole the real situation.

 

Even though historical interpretation is often colored by human's bias, but this doesn't mean that we can't recovered historical truth. It's certainly untrue to believe that historical accounts are merely story telling and dismiss its veracity. We can at least get the general idea of certain events even though some minor details are controversial. Take the above Newton's case for example, though we might not know who invented calculus first, but at least we know that Newton and Leibniz were the first few who had the idea. Similarly, we might never know exactly how many Jews perished in concentration camp, but we knew that Holocaust did happen. We don't have to know all the details in order to establish a case. History is an objective enterprise and it is possible to understand the past even though unimportant details are sketchy.

 

Some may believe that since we don't have "direct" evidence, thus the reconstruction of historical events is meaningless. This belief is unjustified. Science also relies on indirect evidence and there is no reason why history shouldn't. No one ever witness how dinosaurs went extinct. But nevertheless scientists believe that dinosaurs perished 65 millions years ago. To have a historical theory accepted, the theory must be able to explain all the data available. If new data doesn't agree well with old theory, then the theory must be revised or discarded. This auto-correcting process ensures that the historical theories we have are open to change .Every time a revision is made; we are brought a step closer to truth. Sometimes direct evidence is not available, so we have to rely on indirect evidence and do some interpolation. In this way we can still find the best approximation to the truth.

 

Conclusion: it is false to say that history is merely story. Historical account is the closest approximation to the historical truth. Historians are not storytellers; rather they are August men and women who have a passion to understand the past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi nsoonhui!

i am new to this forum.i feel ur essay is good n cogent.but as u said,it is too long.did u manage to finish it in 45mins?and also i found some grammatical mistakes in ur essay,though very few of course! i think ur essay wud be perfect if u manage to correct them.

btw i posted my first essay on the topic no.012,wud u pls give me ur valuable suggestions on it?and when r u taking ur gre exam?

thank u

japes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello

 

I think you have stressed on saying that there is truth in history. while you should choose wheather exploring history is objective pursuit or creative enterprise.

Here I think one should understadn the difference between objective pursuit and creative enterprise.

What I felt is

Objective Pursuit - Tell objective (Remember what is subjective and objective. subjective will be biiiiigggg theory and objective will be points.)

Creative Enterprise - Telling biiiiiigggg interesting story and not the objective details of history

 

Any comments please whether I construe it correctly or not.

 

Thanks,

Tyro

 

 

 

Originally posted by nsoonhui

 

110 When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers.

 

The study of history is an interesting. Some hold that there is no such thing as objective truth in history. They believe that interpretation of events is inevitably tainted by our prejudice and thus all historians are just storytellers. While I agree that interpretation of history involves certain degree of arbitrariness, I dispute the statement "history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit". I shall argue that historians can bring us closer to the truth by reconstructing events based on available evidence.

 

No doubt historical studies are often colored by one's bias and motives. Different people will have different view on the same historical events. This is because we can never know the past directly and hence we have to rely on indirect interpretation of certain evidence. Out of national pride or biases, we might downplay evidence that contradict our view and overemphasize the evidence that favor ours. It's impossible to get a fully fair picture from historians because their prejudice will indubitably slips into their judgment. Take for example, Newton's heat dispute with Leibniz. Newton was a Briton and Leibniz was a German. They fought for the priority of inventing calculus in 17th century. For a century the British scholars featured Newton as the calculus inventor, while German scholars believed that Leibniz was justified to be called as the "father of calculus". No conclusion was made on this issue until a century later. The light came when historians discovered that Newton conceived the idea first before Leibniz, but it was Leibniz who first published his findings. Today Textbooks featured both men as the inventor of Calculus.

 

Another example is holocaust. The number of Jews died in the Hitler’s hands is very hard to estimate. The reason is because we have only indirect evidence and these evidence are incomplete and sometimes, controversial. Jewish scholars will estimate the death tolls higher than some extreme left and right groups. The discrepancy in numbers led some to doubt the veracity of holocaust. They charge that biased historians are misrepresenting available evidence and hyperbole the real situation.

 

Even though historical interpretation is often colored by human's bias, but this doesn't mean that we can't recovered historical truth. It's certainly untrue to believe that historical accounts are merely story telling and dismiss its veracity. We can at least get the general idea of certain events even though some minor details are controversial. Take the above Newton's case for example, though we might not know who invented calculus first, but at least we know that Newton and Leibniz were the first few who had the idea. Similarly, we might never know exactly how many Jews perished in concentration camp, but we knew that Holocaust did happen. We don't have to know all the details in order to establish a case. History is an objective enterprise and it is possible to understand the past even though unimportant details are sketchy.

 

Some may believe that since we don't have "direct" evidence, thus the reconstruction of historical events is meaningless. This belief is unjustified. Science also relies on indirect evidence and there is no reason why history shouldn't. No one ever witness how dinosaurs went extinct. But nevertheless scientists believe that dinosaurs perished 65 millions years ago. To have a historical theory accepted, the theory must be able to explain all the data available. If new data doesn't agree well with old theory, then the theory must be revised or discarded. This auto-correcting process ensures that the historical theories we have are open to change .Every time a revision is made; we are brought a step closer to truth. Sometimes direct evidence is not available, so we have to rely on indirect evidence and do some interpolation. In this way we can still find the best approximation to the truth.

 

Conclusion: it is false to say that history is merely story. Historical account is the closest approximation to the historical truth. Historians are not storytellers; rather they are August men and women who have a passion to understand the past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

17:27

When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers

 

 

The author argues that the history is more subjective enterprise rather than the objective one,and for each one studying with the history is just regarded as a story-teller ,however,in my opinion,the objectivity can not be left out , objectiveity is more important in studying the history.

 

No one will deny that the history is dealing with the facts occured during the course of the history,in this point,history is objective,to study the history,people have to present the evidence to demonstrate the idea of their view of the history,just by narration without the stronger evidence,that is called fiction or folk legend, which is distinctive to the history,history is a science,

thus,the history is actually seen pursuing the truth of the past as its destination,for this reason,numberous of college student have to be stricitly trained before enganging into the studying field to guarrante the objectivity of their study,all the same,the history studig have to employ the elaborate instrument to accomplish each study,thus by no means we should call history just as a story.

 

On the other side,although people are studying the same affairs in the history,due to the different angle of the standpoint,different ethinic,or different value view,the fact can not be reflected by the same tone,in this point,we may call it subjectivity,after all,it is the people who are studying the history ,and the people is easily being affected by several factors.Take the example of the war between china and japan during 1930-1940,the chinese call those japanese troops invader,yet,to Japan,they are regarded as the national hero.

 

To the politician ,history is easily being transdormed in order to satisfy their personal needs,in japan,in the case of the "nanjing"masscare which happened during the 2nd world war and got 300000 citizen of nanjing citizen lost their lives,some people just shout out that such case is a fake,and ignore the fact which have already been proven by the stacks of the evideces,and commonly known all aroud the world except japan,to them,the history is really a subjective enterprise at their own will.

 

All in all,as what i have disscussed above,although,history is subjective sometimes,however for the people who are pursuing the truth,they must try to study it as objective as possible.

 

18:10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Well, maybe u will say what are u saying?? Is it a issue?? yes, it is not a normal issue for GRE, it is just for me. I am mrose today, very unhappy, I need some words to relieve my feeling, so I wrote down them.

 

-----------------------------------

I agree all historians are storytellers. They are, and why not? Firstly, let us look at the word--history, his story, that is the history. So if a historians wants to tell people a period of history, he must tell us the host 's true story, so if he is an excellent historian, he must be an excellent stotyteller. Maybe you will say there is a dumb historain, ok, then he must be a good writer tell true stories with his pen.

 

When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become not only a stroyteller, but also a researcher and detective.We are curious and sensitive to explore what was the truth, no matter it was before 500 years or 5000 years ago. I entirely disagree the claim that exploring history is more of a creative enterpirse than it is an objective pursuit. That implies the exploring lies on historains's imagination and creativity but the reliable evidence and logical analysis. The auther only see the history is broken and an uncoutinuious chain, he does not realize the historain can collect enough proof to relink the historic chain, provide people the whole picture of what had happened. During the exploring, historain holding the objective attitude, respecting the fact, speaking with truth, discovery each of clue, to some extent, they are scientists too. They are more intelligent than Holmes, bold but not hasty, calm but not fussy, careful but not captious, full of scientical spirite. There is no reason to blame them as unobjective storytellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Can you please rate my essay? In which areas do I have to improve?

 

110 When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers.

 

History as a science is often regarded as a very analytical science that collects facts about past events. At a first glance historical research today has a striking similarity to research in the natural sciences. Historian routinely take x-ray pictures of new artifacts, use radon-carbon dating to establish the time of creation of an early human settlement or use computer simulations to make accurate predict the travel velocity of early ships. History seems to be about facts, resembling an objective pursuit for a detailed recollection of the events in the history of mankind.

 

However, history is more than just collecting facts about the past. It's also about why things happened and this is the point where the objectivity of history as a science inevitably comes to an end. All the facts established by field researchers have to be evaluated within the particular timeframe and then brought into a wider context. Historian today are not so much concerned with the when’s and how’s but with the reasons for a particular event.

 

What is truly fascinating about history are not the objective facts. It is a well know fact in which year Napoleon tried to conquer Russia, but this is only where history starts. The mesmerising questions are not about objective facts. They are about the reasons for people's actions. Why did Napoleon, a man from rural island Corsica, become the most powerful man of his time? Why did he try to conquer Russia? And why was his endeavor doomed to fail? History is about people and about what thrives them. As far as the motivation of someone is concerned there will always be guesswork involved.

 

The quest for the reasons behind an event is often much more difficult but also more rewarding. There are often several versions of an event if one consults different sources. In other cases the recollection of the events is biased because it was written by one of the parties involved. A famous example is Julius Caesar's opus "De Bello Gallico" in which he describes how he conquered what is today France. How different would this story read if it was told from the point of view of a Frenchman of this time? Careful historian will consult many sources and will try to make an objective recollection of the events but ultimately there is no absolute truth. It always depends on the point of view and the cultural perspective of the person interpreting the historical event. So any recollection by a historian becomes to a certain degree a story.

 

Yet this is not meant to be a bad thing a priori. Stories can spur our imagination, they make history accessible. In the stories historians tell us the people from the different stages of the history of mankind become alive again. We listen to their fates, we feel with them and we may even learn from them. If we know about the mistakes people made in the past, we may be able not to make the same mistakes again. Imaginative stories surrounding the historical facts are the only mean to connect the past and the present.

 

To conclude, I agree with the author of the statement. History starts with the pursuit for facts, but the evaluation of these facts leaves a broad leeway for interpretation. The stories around the historical facts make past events accessible for people living today. So good historians are not only scientists but also storytellers. They add the flavor to all those great stories written by fate in the millennia since mankind's ascend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...