Can History Be Objective?

Oct 2011
189
Croatia
When i came across these debates in academia and the wider world, about the subjective and objective, i simply looked these words up in my dictionary. It's a Chambers from 1996. It's quite obvious an ideology has invented a definition of objectivity, totally and entirely different to what appears in peoples dictionaries, in order to deploy it! of course

The dictionary definition of objective - and there is no obvious reason to change our definitions of words, they will always be important - Is being impartial. The definition of subjective, again in my dictionary Is based on personal feelings & opinions, or Not Objective.

If objective is god-like, there really is very little everyday use for the word (unless you are believing in some way). Just not sensible thereby. And therefore i ask quite seriously, who told you that? What book, what teacher?
I am going by the definition I had been taught while studying journalism. It comes from the root of the word: objective is one pertaining to an object, on other words, a complete, all-encompassing image of it (as you can pick up an object and look it over from all angles). Subjective is one pertaining to, coming from an individual, something that may change depending on point of view and circumstance. Our view of history is subjective because it depends on very limited amount of information available and a lot of interpretation; therefore, it can and does change with circumstances, with information we have, with out interpretation and contextualization of said information, with our emotions (never forget the power of rationalization).
And I really see no need for "objective" if it means the exact same thing as "impartial".
 
Oct 2011
189
Croatia
When i came across these debates in academia and the wider world, about the subjective and objective, i simply looked these words up in my dictionary. It's a Chambers from 1996. It's quite obvious an ideology has invented a definition of objectivity, totally and entirely different to what appears in peoples dictionaries, in order to deploy it! of course

The dictionary definition of objective - and there is no obvious reason to change our definitions of words, they will always be important - Is being impartial. The definition of subjective, again in my dictionary Is based on personal feelings & opinions, or Not Objective.

If objective is god-like, there really is very little everyday use for the word (unless you are believing in some way). Just not sensible thereby. And therefore i ask quite seriously, who told you that? What book, what teacher?
I am going by the definition I had been taught while studying journalism. It comes from the root of the word: objective is one pertaining to an object, on other words, a complete, all-encompassing image of it (as you can pick up an object and look it over from all angles). Subjective is one pertaining to, coming from an individual, something that may change depending on point of view and circumstance. Our view of history is subjective because it depends on very limited amount of information available and a lot of interpretation; therefore, it can and does change with circumstances, with information we have, with out interpretation and contextualization of said information, with our emotions (never forget the power of rationalization). So a watermelon weighting 1 kg is objective fact, as it can be measured; but saying that X lost battle because of Y, or that Q caused P or whatever, is inherently subjective; even if it is presented as simple list of events.
And I really see no need for "objective" if it means the exact same thing as "impartial".
 
Sep 2015
1,762
England
I am going by the definition I had been taught while studying journalism. It comes from the root of the word: objective is one pertaining to an object, on other words, a complete, all-encompassing image of it (as you can pick up an object and look it over from all angles). Subjective is one pertaining to, coming from an individual, something that may change depending on point of view and circumstance. Our view of history is subjective because it depends on very limited amount of information available and a lot of interpretation; therefore, it can and does change with circumstances, with information we have, with out interpretation and contextualization of said information, with our emotions (never forget the power of rationalization). So a watermelon weighting 1 kg is objective fact, as it can be measured; but saying that X lost battle because of Y, or that Q caused P or whatever, is inherently subjective; even if it is presented as simple list of events.
And I really see no need for "objective" if it means the exact same thing as "impartial".
Then i can only recommend you re-consider carefully my above posts. Not just the grammar definition, but the philos one as well. It has a direct Oxbridge correlation.
 

Similar History Discussions