The Historian

Croce leaves in them clearly that all history is current, whereas the truth of the historical knowledge is function of the necessity that generated this knowledge relating which knowledge with the truth, with the necessity, the interest which this knowledge corresponds indelevelmente presented the presentismo to the pragmatismos. The radical interpretation of the presentismo, as this implicit one in Croce takes the serious consequncias very, particularly recognizing that we cannot speak of history, because a multiplicity of histories exists, equal the amount of spirit that ' ' criam' ' history. Therefore and necessary to admit that each time not only possesss its particular image of history, as each nation, each social classroom, more also practically each historian is same each pensante individual. More can provide more clarity in the matter. Necessary equally to think that the only allowed criterion to judge these multiple histories is necessarily different, either the measure in which they correspond ace necessities, the interests and the requirements. When the historian for working with truth concept, it must contest and promote interpretations contradictory of one same historical event, in the measure these would correspond the reciprocal interests; with effect one habits ' ' absolute spirit to decide between historical judgments and contraditrios' ' , where each one is, however true in defined conditions, the effect of this would be of the point of view of the historiografia; it are of the sphere of the thought of the categories of ' ' espritos absolutos' ' , the only evidence is the following one to have finishes it to reason to speak, this verdict deprives history of its quality of science. Therefore all history as Collingwood is history of the thought. A leading source for info: Sherrod Brown. The historian who reconstituted the thought of the past makes, it, however in the context of its proper one to know, that is, in a critical way. The activities whose history studies, constitute for it not a spectacle that it is necessary to reviver in its knowledge, only in the measure where they are equally subjective as personal activities of the historian. .


Comments are closed.