Can History Be Objective?

[Naomasa298]

All i'm asking for is clarification how you are saying that. There's "Tell me" in conversion, or there's "Tell me" in an interrogation. Your request is ambivalent.

There is nothing ambivalent about it. "Tell ne" means for you to tell me. It's not hard to understand.

And again, anyone can look up anything, like "post modernists" over the internet.
What have you found? What is your thinking as to people involved?
They could be just a bunch of names from an area of academia.

I'm not interested in the results of an internet search. I want to know what YOU mean.

I have nonetheless Michael Foucault, Zadie Smith and Doris Lessing featuring on my screen.

Also the post modernists might tend to follow postmodernism, so a search for that might enlighten?
Here is the wiki page: Postmodernism - Wikipedia
which doesn't seem to have changed much since the last time i looked.

And i quote, '..common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.'

and that therefore 'it's all relative' you might think?

See? Was that difficult for you?

Now, the next time you decide to label something or someone "post-modern", you will explain exactly what makes it so. Because as far as I can see, you are simple tossing out this term indiscriminately to sound authoritative, without understanding what it actually means.

And the next time I ask a question, I don't expect evasiveness from you, or there will be sanctions.

 

[dreuxeng]

Ask a question and get ten questions back !
history has several levels , the main one is the existing records and material evidence
the rest is disputation or literature

It's even worst for pre-history , truckloads of books have been written on very few bones

Very intelligent, and very qualified people like professors, might just beg to differ surely? They can piece together intelligent guesses at least, and, as with most ancient history, they can say as much, and which forms moreover part of their narratives.

 

[Rodger]

The challenge, besides often little to no or conflicting, evidence, is that most humans have a difficult time remaining objective, especially in areas where they have some personal connection/interest. Thus, we even see arguments over ancient history that seem to be colored by own's life experience or world view, often unconsciously.

 

[raethsel]

The challenge, besides often little to no or conflicting, evidence, is that most humans have a difficult time remaining objective, especially in areas where they have some personal connection/interest. Thus, we even see arguments over ancient history that seem to be colored by own's life experience or world view, often unconsciously.

I find that sort of fun, though.

 

[fascinating]

Not really. Being objective is being impartial.

Please tell me how the statement "Human beings have inhabited the British mainland for at least 2000 years" is not an objective historical fact.

 

[fascinating]

That's a little too authoritarian for me. Would you like to re-phrase it?

Druxeng, YOU used the phrase "post-modernist historians" so YOU should be able to explain what you mean by that.

 

[dreuxeng]

=

The challenge, besides often little to no or conflicting, evidence, is that most humans have a difficult time remaining objective, especially in areas where they have some personal connection/interest. Thus, we even see arguments over ancient history that seem to be colored by own's life experience or world view, often unconsciously.

What kind of arguments are you referring to ?!
By whom, and in what publication?
Can you provide some examples?

 

[dreuxeng]

Please tell me how the statement "Human beings have inhabited the British mainland for at least 2000 years" is not an objective historical fact.

Because being objective, is being impartial. Why does it have to be impartial, or partial for that matter?

When you present the overwhelming evidence that says as much ie 2000 years etc, it will indeed appear to be entirely the case. It just is. Non-problematically. (Non-ideologically even etc). The fact that it is impartial sort of technically, appears superfluous.

 

[Naomasa298]

Because being objective, is being impartial. Why does it have to be impartial, or partial for that matter?

When you present the overwhelming evidence that says as much ie 2000 years etc, it will indeed appear to be entirely the case. It just is. Non-problematically. (Non-ideologically even etc). The fact that it is impartial sort of technically, appears superfluous.

Stop rambling, or I will remove you from this thread.

Being verbose and throwing as many grandiouse sounding words does not an argument make.

Consider this a warning.

 

[Rodger]

=


What kind of arguments are you referring to ?!
By whom, and in what publication?
Can you provide some examples?

For one, I'm am refering to the average persn and amatuer historians. That's why my post refers to "most humans." They too have a right to history. Then, there are nationalists or others who are motivated by political or philosophical issues. I can't name anybody in particular today because I am not a historian by profession and don't follow the professionals.