Man is the Measure by Reuben Abel is a seminal work about knowledge issues related to the shaping of history. This is required reading for every Theory of Knowledge class and serious academics will undoubtedly appreciate the ideas Abel considers. In this succinct summary of the main ideas, Abel helps us to see history from a variety of perspectives and interpretations.
Click on this link The Study of History Abel
Please read and write a comment/question.
Even though the history information presented to us is bias or short does it mean there are no other information recorded down? In my opinionm, there are other information recorded down but they’re just not presented to us as a group.
History can’t be to its fullest sanctification because not everything categorized into history is accurate so its always being edited throughout time. The causes of this is perspectives, bias, or selectivity. Each historian has his or her own personal beliefs and interpretation of an event. No matter how similar their stories may be, there will always be a slight difference in the way they perceived the happening. So then there is the argue and questioning what significance is there to emphasizing history if there is always a possibility that it could be inaccurate. But what should be more focused on is that, with history there is resolutions. We use history to help us to learn from mistakes and advance to better ways of living. Since we know that history could never fully be in its satisfactions, we need to not fight against it but work with it. And so we have to use what we have to benefit everyone.
How are events chosen from the past to be placed in “history”? Is the past and history two different aspects? To what extent does selection limit our knowledge? To what extent does bias limit our knowledge? Extend it?
By reading this article i realized that not all history is complete. History is based off the main points and some of the history behind he main events. Is history really history when some of the history is taken out because historians think it’s correct to go to the main point. The history being taught to us in our history class isn’t complete how i know this because in our history class the text books for the u.s. history are about 500 to 1000 words. How is it possible that the u.s. history fits in very little amount of pages? How significant does an event have to be to be considered history? Would our perception on history change if we lived through the history? To what extent does our cultural values change our perception of history?
In the Study of History they say that history is always written wrong.Then why do we believe that the stuff we learn in history is true? Have we been learning the right stuff since we were young? History is sort of like art because like in art we focus on the main points and in history we only focus on the main points in that time period. History is also like science because in science we make hypothesis and observations and we do the same thing in history.
“A Finnish historian finds that the Russian winter of 1812, which is supposed to have destroyed Napoleon’s army, was a mild one.”
I admire Napoleon’s ambition, strategy, and overall, his attempt at conquering nations. And because I was told that Napoleon’s army went through a blizzard during his invasion in Russia, I understood and sympathized with him because we can’t control the weather (or maybe we can? who knows for sure?). However, after reading that excerpt above in quotations, my vision of his has degraded. If the winter in Russia during 1812 was exegarated and not as harsh as I’ve read it to be, then in my opinion, it is absolutely ridiculous for him to have suffered so many casualties.
When he was assigned the position as general in invading Northern Italy, the troops that served under him were already in despair and low on morale, yet he was able to stir the blood of the ragged French army and execute precise movements to defeat the Italian army. (Or is this a problem with history? Maybe the French troops weren’t in despair and rather, they were just skeptical of Napoleon’s ability as a leader?)
But if this IS true, then how was Napoleon unable to do the same in his battle in Russia?
How can what we learn through history affect how we perceive it? How can historical details shape our perception?
Hisory, like most subjects, is not absolute. We have seen constant changes in historical interpretations. So really, studyig history is not about memorizing facts and dates, like most of the general population assumes, for these dates may change in the incoming years. History is about learning how to evaluate different sources and determine their value to our journey of historical investigation. It is then, the historian’s job to write down a narrative with whatever evidence is present. And as we have learn, each historical interpretation is subject so differen physiological and psychilogical baises. Having this mind, if you really want to have more certainty on a historical event, read the information on the same topic from different reliable sources. This will give you more certainty in your interpretation of events and an overall understanding of the subject.
To what extent does history represent Psychology? They say history is similar to science. Historians like scientists make hypotheses, looks for patterns and interpret. To what extent does logic affect our philosophy? How do contradictions affect our perception?
It caught my attention that you mentioned psychology being represented by history. They are both human sciences, we there is some knowledge about humans on both of these scieces. In addition, I have learned, that our spychological construct is often the fuel toward our actions. Imagine if Hitler really loved the color pink, then he would have probably ordered to pain every building in Germany pink. It is important to say, however, that power has also lots to do with history. A person with power is more likely to make his psychological desires a reality, ie. holocaust.
According to the reading of the study of The Study of History, it was a great and powerful history but then there are questions regarding the history. The questions are: To what extent, how can we tell that history is not lieing to us?, How can we prove that the history that we are learning or known had happend in the past? The perception that we have now, how can we know or feel the way the people back in history feel like? Can there be lies in history? Are there events that are important or not important and be put into history?
It was a great and powerful history because I’ve never thought that artists or painters can become history. I thought that history were important events that had happend in the past. But there are many other things that had been put into history besides the important events.
Does everything has to be a significant event in order to be history? (Considered an event that happened yesterday, it is still consider in the past)(Right?)
In reading this article I have understand that HISTORY is a past that doesn’t have limits. Our cultural beliefs have a different interpretation that allows other people to understand it in more clearer ways but giving a different point of view. In what ways can cultural beliefs affect history? How is romanticism related with history?
Is it possible for history to have a limit?
The introduction describes history as “imaginative retelling,” which reminds me of the idea that history is a narrative and narrative we know is storytelling. That makes a link to language as a way of knowing.
What is fit to print implies the problem with omission of facts and the problem of selectivity. Can history be revised into thesis statements like “Guns, Germs, and Steel” as a way of shaping what we believe.
It’s obvious that the human mind wants to see patterns and create order out of chaos. Do we do that with history?
I like the idea that we can have some certainty with history IF we compare and contrast facts, documents, and sources of information. We don’t have to fall into the trap of relativism or nihilism.