The History Teacher's Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, September, 1909Various
History
The History Teacher's Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, September, 1909
Various
History -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Social sciences -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals
What is history? How does it differ in its aims and methods from
natural science, from political and economic science, from sociology?
According to the new logic, the differences are fundamental. History
concerns itself with the unique evolution of man in his activities as a
social being. It deals with human potentialities in their teleological
connections. Out of past social facts it selects the unique facts
that have a value for the period that is being studied and groups
these facts in complex, evolving wholes. History does not seek for
what is common to the social facts of the past; it does not attempt to
generalize, to establish laws. It could not if it would, for it deals
with facts that have occurred but once, that will not occur again,
and a generalization assumes repetition. The natural sciences, on the
other hand, including economics, political science and sociology, deal
with substances and causal law. They select for their syntheses what
is common to a group of facts; they generalize, they aim to establish
laws, to formulate the conditions under which a thing will repeat
itself. Their ideal is the organization of reality under the point of
view of the general. There is, of course, but one reality and natural
science and history are simply two logical methods evolved by the human
mind for the purpose of organizing it that it may be comprehended. The
ends of the two methods are different, and their methods of getting at
the truth are different. The student trained in the one method is not
necessarily acquainted with the other.
The Historian’s Work.
The natural science method consists of a direct study of the facts,
and, as it is not concerned with the unique as unique, it may
create situations and conditions, thus securing abundant data for
generalization. For the historian this is impossible. He studies
not the fact, as the natural scientist studies plants, animals and
chemicals in the laboratory; he has only the record of the fact, the
fact itself having gone never to return. His knowledge of the fact
will depend upon the abundance and value of the records the fact has
left behind it. Such records we call sources. Sources, then, are the
remains of man’s social activities. They fall naturally into two
groups: remains and tradition. Remains consist of objects that were
parts of the past event, and have survived the destructive action
of time; tradition embraces the impressions of the event recorded
by witnesses, and may be oral, written or pictorial in form. The
historical reconstruction, found in the narrative text, is based, in a
large majority of cases, upon written tradition.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account