The idea of
acquisition of knowledge is a perennial problem. 'To know' is the nature of
man.[1]
However, in acquiring knowledge history plays a vital role. Simply put, in
attempt to know a thing it is of utmost importance to know its history.
Critically speaking, history can be scrutinized to ascertain its cogency and
authenticity. This apparently is the primary task of "philosophy of
history". However, this work aims at giving in details the difference
between ordinary history and "philosophy of history".
DEFINITION
OF TERMS
HISTORY:
Etymologically speaking, history is coined from the Greek word “Historia”
meaning “inquiry”- knowledge from inquiry. It is the study of past event,
particularly in human affairs. From a layman’s view, history can be said to be
the witness that testifies to the passing of time. It illuminates reality,
vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of
antiquity. Furthermore, history strives to tell how the past really was and
aims at instructing the contemporary world as to the future. Still flowing in
the same line of thought, Anna Comnena emphatically writes:
Time in its
irresistible and ceaseless flow carries along on its flood all created things
and drowns them in the depths of obscurity…. But the tale of history forms a
very strong bulwark against the stream of time and check in some measure, it’s
irresistible flow, so that, of all things done in it, as many as history has
taken over it secures and binds together and does not allow them to slip into
the abyss of oblivion.[2]
Abiogu, in
the same manner, holds that history is a continuous systematic narrative of
past event as relation to a particular people, country, period or certain area
usually written as a chronological account.[3]
History is
the re-creation of past experience in the minds of people. Also, it suggests
the possibility of better understanding of ourselves in the present, by
understanding the forces, choices and circumstances that brought us to our
current situation. History, however is not what one thinks, rather it is what
was. In other words, historical knowledge is knowledge of what minds has done
in the past and at the same time; it is the re-doing of this, the perpetuation
of past acts in the present.
PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY: The name "philosophy
of history" can be traced back in eighteenth century to Voltaire, who
meant by it a critical or scientific history, a type of historical thinking in
which the historian made up his mind for himself instead of repeating whatever
stories he found in old books, he tends to critically scrutinize it. For
adequate grasping of the meaning of "philosophy of history", it is
proper to first highlight on what philosophy is all about because it is the
conception of philosophy that governs the conception "philosophy of
history". Philosophy in its strict sense is the critical, reflective and
analytic inquiry into reality. In other words, it is a critical quest which is
devoid of bias ideology. However, "philosophy of history" is the
philosophical characterisation and analysis of historiography: the logical,
conceptual and epistemological characterisation of what historians do. It
scrutinizes the course of objectivity of history, truth and fact. "Philosophy
of history" attempts an interpretation of historical process. “It is an
attempt to discover either in the overall course of events or in the general nature
of the historical process, some meaning or significance which transcends the
intelligibility achieved by ordinary historical work.”[4]
"Philosophy of history" deals with question such as the nature of
historical evidence, the degree to which objectivity is possible etc. it is
concerned with the eventual significance of history. In a universal approach, "philosophy
of history" is the thoughtful consideration of history.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORDINARY HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY
OF HISTORY
Ordinary
history and "philosophy of history" are two distinct disciplines, as
such possess distinctive features. Though, both seem to re-enact past
experience but they differ in their various approaches. Unlike ordinary
history, "philosophy of history" brings with it the simple conception
of reason. In other words, it presents us with a rational process. Ordinary
history on the contrary does not likely involve reason in its ordeals rather it
unconquerably states the fact as it is. Simply put, while ordinary history
tells about the past, "philosophy of history" through critical and
rational process shapes ordinary history. It makes ordinary history rationally
progressive.
Furthermore,
history in its ordinary sense is simply and unreflectively what happened in the
past. On the other hand, "philosophy of history" makes history
philosophically and rationally understandable as a purposeful and meaningful progressive
movement and to justify it for common sense. In other words, history devoid of
its philosophical inquiry is only an aimless meandering or else a monotonous
repetition of the same old story of the past.
In another
vein, changes can occur in historical process. This can be as a result of the
narrator applying his own idea to the object of history, perhaps because he was
not there during the event of history. Consequently, by ways of distinction, "philosophy
of history" in its approaches aims at scrutinizing the accidental
infusions (changes) in the historical phenomena. From the above point, it is
obvious that ordinary history lacks objectivity. However, "philosophy of
history" tends to suggest the general criterion of historical credibility.
Furthermore,
on the difference between ordinary history and "philosophy of
history", Wilhelm Windelband argues that history is concerned only with
delineating particular facts- it is “idiographic” rather than “nomothetic” but "philosophy
of history" rules out presuppositions in its quest. In the same manner,
Heinrich Rickert held in addition that history is basically a fact-stating
discipline while "philosophy of history" is a critical value judging
endeavour. An adequate view of ordinary history shows that its proper mode of
understanding is emphatic rather than dispassionate which is one of the tenets
of "philosophy of history". Ordinary history, most times does not
portray meaning/significance, it basically states fact but on the contrary, "philosophy
of history" seeks meaning. It asks pertinent questions about the object of
history.
CONCLUSION
As
it has been stated earlier, even though both history and "philosophy of
history" are both two wings through which one can rise to the truth of the
past, that does not make them synonymous. They are distinctive. "philosophy
of history" critically strives to question the idea of determinism and
irregularity in history. Conclusively, history is a total and comprehensible
process of events, structures and processes, for which "philosophy of
history" can serve as an interpretive tool.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABIOGU, G. C., Unpublished lecture note on "philosophy
of history", 2015.
ARISTOTLE, The
Complete works of Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes, Vol. 2 New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1984.
COLLINGWOOD, R. G., The Idea of History. London: Oxford
University Press, 1961.
Encyclopedia
of Philosophy: vol. 5 & 6; Edited by Paul Edwards. New York: Macmillan publishing Co.,
Inc. & The Free Press, 1967.
HEGEL, G. W. F., Reason in
History; trans- R. S. Hartman. New York: Macmillan Publishing company, 1953.
HEGEL, G. W. F., The "philosophy
of history"; trans- J. Sibree. New York, Dover Publications,
Inc. 1956.
WALSH, W. H., An
Introduction to "philosophy of history". New York: Hutchison
& Co Publishers Ltd., 1967.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kirill_Lokshin
[1]Aristotle, The Complete works
of Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes, Vol. 2 (New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1984), p.1552.
[2]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kirill_Lokshin
[3]G. C. Abiogu, Unpublished lecture note on "philosophy of
history", 2015.
[4]Encyclopedia of Philosophy: vol. 5 & 6; Edited by Paul Edwards. (New York: Macmillan
publishing Co., Inc. & The Free Press, 1967),p.247.
No comments:
Post a Comment