|
The term philosophy of history refers to the theoretical aspect of history, in two senses. It is customary to distinguish critical philosophy of history from speculative philosophy of history. Critical philosophy of history is the "theory" aspect of the discipline of academic history, and deals with questions such as the nature of historical evidence, the degree to which objectivity is possible, etc. Speculative philosophy of history is an area of philosophy concerning the eventual significance, if any, of human history.〔E.g. W. H. Walsh, ''Introduction to the Philosophy of History'' (1951) ch.1 s.2.〕 Furthermore, it speculates as to a possible teleological end to its development—that is, it asks if there is a design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the processes of human history. Part of Marxism, for example, is speculative philosophy of history. Another example is "historiosophy", the term coined by Gershom Scholem to describe his understanding of history and metaphysics.〔(Gershom Scholem ), ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''〕 Though there is some overlap between the two aspects, they can usually be distinguished; modern professional historians tend to be skeptical about speculative philosophy of history. Sometimes critical philosophy of history is included under historiography. Philosophy of history should not be confused with the history of philosophy, which is the study of the development of philosophical ideas in their historical context.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=What is Intellectual History? )〕 Speculative philosophy of history asks at least three basic questions: * What is the proper unit for the study of the human past — the individual subject? The family, ''polis'' ("city") or sovereign territory? The civilization or culture? Or the whole of the human species? * Are there any broad patterns that we can discern through the study of the human past? Are there, for example, patterns of progress? Or cycles? Is history deterministic? Or are there no patterns or cycles, and is human history regulated by irregularity? Related to this is the study of individual agency and its impact in history, functioning within, or opposed to, larger trends and patterns. * If history can indeed be said to progress or cycle, what is its ultimate direction or pattern? What (if any) is the driving force of the progress or of the cycles? * What does it mean to know, explain and write history? ==Pre-modern history== In the ''Poetics'', Aristotle argued that poetry is superior to history because poetry speaks of what ''must'' or ''should'' be true rather than merely what ''is'' true. This reflects early axial concerns (good/bad, right/wrong) over metaphysical concerns for what "is". Accordingly, classical historians felt a duty to ennoble the world. In keeping with philosophy of history, it is clear that their philosophy of value imposed upon their process of writing history—philosophy influenced method and hence product. Herodotus, a contemporary of Socrates, broke from Homeric tradition, of passing narrative from generation to generation, in his work, "Investigations" (Ancient Greek: Ἱστορίαι; Istoríai) also known as "Histories". Herodotus is considered, by some, as the first systematic historian, and, later, Plutarch freely invented speeches for their historical figures and chose their historical subjects with an eye toward morally improving the reader. History was supposed to teach one good examples to follow. The assumption that history "should teach good examples" influenced how history was written. Events of the past are just as likely to show bad examples that are not to be followed, but these historians would either not record them or re-interpret them to support their assumption of history's purpose. From the Classical period to the Renaissance, historians alternated between focusing on subjects designed to improve mankind and on a devotion to fact. History was composed mainly of hagiographies of monarchs or epic poetry describing heroic gestures such as the Song of Roland about the Battle of Roncevaux Pass, during Charlemagne's first campaign to conquer the Iberian peninsula. In the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun, who is considered one of the fathers of the philosophy of history, discussed his philosophy of history and society in detail in his ''Muqaddimah'' (1377). His work was a culmination of earlier works by Sociology in medieval Islam in the spheres of Islamic ethics, political science, and historiography, such as those of al-Farabi, Ibn Miskawayh, al-Dawwani, and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi.〔H. Mowlana (2001). "Information in the Arab World", ''Cooperation South Journal'' 1.〕 Ibn Khaldun often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data." As a result, he introduced a scientific method to the philosophy of history, which was considered something "new to his age," and he often referred to it as his "new science," which is now associated with historiography.〔Ibn Khaldun, Franz Rosenthal, N. J. Dawood (1967), ''The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History'', p. x, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-01754-9.〕 His historical method also laid the groundwork for the observation of the role of state, communication, propaganda, and systematic bias in history.〔 By the 18th century, historians had turned toward a more positivist approach focusing on fact as much as possible, but still with an eye on telling histories that could instruct and improve. Starting with Fustel de Coulanges and Theodor Mommsen, historical studies began to progress towards a more modern scientific form. In the Victorian era, the debate in historiography thus was not so much whether history was intended to improve the reader, but what causes turned history and how historical change could be understood. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Philosophy of history」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|