Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
If you dont know history, then you dont know anything. You are a leaf that doesnt know it is part of a tree. Said Michael Crichton. I found out that history is something that has been happening for centuries and that we have to live with every day. From E.H Carrs book called What is history? I advanced my existing knowledge of history. As a matter of fact, history has come up to this stage, departing itself from misguided and fallacious assumptions of past historians in which various fields of history were studied and compared from the nineteen and early twentieth centuries. It is a chain of continuity in which society and individuals are complementary to each other. I expected to have a precise and definite definition of history from this book. However, in this book Carr has kept his idea in a jargon-free manner. I read this book to strengthen my knowledge of what history really means. At first, I was more confused than convinced since various historians with different perspectives were mentioned. He states that facts and documents are essential tools for historians. On the contrary, I got engrossed in this book right from chapter two till the end of the chapter. Despite history being monotonous, it includes sympathy and the story of a great man. It is imaginative understanding which includes both subjective and objective interpretations. It is a science in process and an art in interpretation.
History needs imaginative understanding, not sympathy. History was considered to be sympathetic by many scholars in the early eighteen and nineteen centuries. Due to this view history is treated as a tedious subject. It is more about individuals like leaders, warriors, and most famous men leaving all the common man. I chose the definition of history by George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, All history is the history of thought and all historical processes are backed by reason. He states that history is backed by reasons. His idea doesnt have a clear explanation of how reasons influence history to progress further. However, the reasons are not well interpreted. Historians provide reasons solely based on sympathy rather than empathy. However, it didnt have any analytical purposes as it was swayed by personal emotions. To understand a historical event, the empathetic view should be taken into consideration by historians or anyone who is studying history. It helps us to understand each individual. History is not always backed by a reason as Hegel states because some events dont have proper justifications as subjectivity prevails.
History is science in process and interpretation is the lifeblood of history. Carr states the word science already covers so many different branches of knowledge, employing so many different methods and techniques, which the onus seems to rest on those who seek to exclude history rather than on those who seek to include it. History, as a subject is more sophisticated than it seems to be. The point of science being a part of history discipline is rather questionable point. But history is, indeed, a science that is in process of becoming a part of the discipline. Science and arts share similar characteristics as a discipline. Science focus on generalization and law is created through a hypothesis. Similarly, history is all about generalization and a theory is created through a hypothesis. Facts are collected based on various interpretations made by many witnesses. The facts included documents, letters, diaries, treaties, etc. which provided a solid base for various interpretations. Without interpretation, historical facts carry no value. For interpretation is the bloodline of history, no fact can escape from it and the fact of history being backed by a reason is not agreeable at times like this because the interpretations are not always clear and proper.
The history of all every individual carries the same importance. The life story of a common man carries the same importance as that of a great man. There shouldnt be any kind of discrimination while writing history just because of individual differences. For history to be called a science in process subjectivity shouldnt be there. Science heals the gap between the growing interest in the study of history and how historical fact is created, striving to be neutral in the end.
Conversely, I came to know that facts in history are like nutrients that help to keep the essence of history alive. History is the formula that explains the procedure and beautifies the performance. The book of Carr made me realize that history cannot be free of subjectivity. It made me realize that the facts mean nothing unless interpreted in a good way. If I were to suggest a student read a book on any topic, I would recommend them to opt for Carrs book because it is an enlightening one that stirs the mind of an individual in a good way. Can we really depend on the written facts or should we find a better way to view those facts?
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.