tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post9001145122006707217..comments2023-10-12T01:36:25.094-06:00Comments on Origin(al) Thoughts: Chapter VIJA Ludtkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18040770172996576788noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post-79945777921077480902009-02-09T10:04:00.000-07:002009-02-09T10:04:00.000-07:00I am a big fan of historical narrative. Aesthetics...I am a big fan of historical narrative. Aesthetics in history are important, and an art to learn. It makes sense, when inundating the reader with facts we should give them added significance, and unfurl before the eyes of the reader the majestic unfurling scroll of human destiny. <BR/><BR/>However, most scholars these days leave out a narrative, but still manipulate the facts, as odd as that sounds, claiming the truth does not exist. They spend their careers not seeking to recreate what really happened but arguing some obscure philosophical point as a pure intellectual exercise or advancing a convoluted political agenda. <BR/><BR/>Consider me one of the naive idealists who still believe that history, starved of the truth, must inevitably wither on the vine, if not die.David Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03961342634845745471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post-83013401839732928222009-02-08T22:28:00.000-07:002009-02-08T22:28:00.000-07:00Hi David,I'm intrigued to see a historian such as ...Hi David,<BR/><BR/>I'm intrigued to see a historian such as yourself impressed by Darwin's approach, and bothered by the rarity with which scholars in your own field take a comparable approach. Many scientists take it for granted that scholars in the social sciences and humanities are relativists, and so aren't even looking for 'the truth' (because they would deny that such a thing even exists). <BR/><BR/>Of course, as noted in class, scientists today certainly do all kinds of things that would make Darwin uncomfortable--cite the evidence selectively, pretend that their work has much broader implications than it does, etc. <BR/><BR/>This isn't to say that the notion of "facts" isn't problematic, or that simply knowing enough "facts" is a straightforward way to decide whether or not a theory is true. For instance, even if Darwin had encountered a few facts he didn't think he could explain, he surely had enough facts that he could explain that it was worth publishing his theory as deserving of serious consideration. But deciding when a theory is successful enough to be worth pursuing further is always a judgment call. <BR/><BR/>And maybe there are sometimes good reasons for putting a "spin" on the facts. For instance, as a reader, I find history much more palatable if it's given narrative shape. I'm probably not alone in this, as the continuing popularity of historical fiction attests (although I'm not into historical fiction myself--why layer a fictional narrative on top of the "real" narrative?). Narrative history is always contrary to the facts in some sense, since there's no reason why history should build to a climax, or have heroes and villains, or etc. But non-narrative history is just too dull for me (sorry!).Dr. Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02948439373673427525noreply@blogger.com