posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:30 PM
There are two basic objects in historical research.
1. History, as in what actually happened. History is the total sum of events at any given date/time.
2. History, as a form of the social sciences, is the endeavor to recreate 1, with only such methods that are objective and therefore open to the
scrutiny of others.
What is produced under 2. will never, ever, even in the idealest of worlds come to capture everything that 1 entails. But that shouldn't keep anyone
from accepting the lessons that history teach. History, as a narrative conceptualization of 1. is always instructive as long as objective methods are
used and other people can chime in.
Think of History (2.) as a comb, with which you comb through History (1.). What you get depends on the traits of the comb and how you use it - you can
produce a myriad of accounts in this way, all of them historical, but none of it giving an accurate picture on its own. Only by combining repeated
efforts does a clear understanding emerge.
Well, whatever. Some thoughts on history.
An afterthought: I always believed that history is written by the victors. Actually, that is a common misconeception: History is actuall written by
edit on 17-7-2012 by NichirasuKenshin because: grammar