• Gus Lamarch
    924
    It is noticeable, through the analysis of contemporary common sense, that the vision of the concept of "history" is completely assimilated to a Hegelian - and partially Comtean - perception of progress to the "best" strictly, in all aspects of society, such as culture, technology, psyche, etc ..., however, it was not always so.

    People in ancient times didn’t think of themselves as living in “ancient times”; they thought of themselves as modern in pretty much the same way that we do now. Nonetheless, the way they conceived of “modernity” was usually quite different from how we conceive of it.

    Today, most people generally tend to think of “ancient times” as a time when people were living in poorer conditions than the ones we live in today. We tend to think of history as a sort of progression from an original primitive state to the modern, highly technologically advanced world we know today.

    Ancient peoples generally tended to see things the opposite way; they tended to see things as getting progressively worse. The distant past was commonly imagined as a glorious Golden Age - as in the case of the ancient Greeks - and the present was seen as an age of pitiful squalor in comparison. The future was often imagined as being even more wretched than the present.

    Medieval people, in contrast, used the concept of "Translatio Imperii" where time, in all of its extension - past and future - is completely linear - governed by God - and differs from moment to moment in the transfer of political power between the States - Ex: The French saw themselves as the heirs of Rome, so they defined history as a transfer of power from Ancient Greece > Roman Empire > Franks to France -.

    My question with the presentation of all this diverse view of history is:

    "The subjectivity of history, in a matter that in different periods and in different cultures, was conceived in a way that mirrors the morals and values ​​of that whole culture, does demonstrate, through a logical argument, that history as a concept, its nothing more than anthropology, as its study differs from people to people?"
  • Deleted User
    0
    I find this hard to understand from a scientific point of view. If history and anthropology were the same disciplines, why would we teach them separately? Doesn't history teach more than just about humans?
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    It is rather limited if people do view history as if people in the past were always in worse conditions. I don't think that approach was necessarily taken when I was taught history at school. There were difficult periods, such as th, but there were great civilisations in the past, especially the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians.

    I do think that some people in philosophy circles tend to think of the history of ideas as if the progression of ideas is all progress, but, at the same time, many do appreciate thinkers of the past as having great value, especially Plato, but many others too. We are in the position to look back on the history of ideas but that doesn't make the ideas of our times any superior. Possibly, some scientists may think it does, including some psychologists.

    When you compare history with anthropology it does seem to me that the two can be layed out similarly, one across time and the other across cultures geographically. However, I think that in some cases the sense of people viewing anthropology can be viewed with the same imperialistic bias. The West is sometimes viewed as more advanced.

    So, you could ask to what extent are we able to look back on history and across cultures and not make assumptions about progress, and with an undercurrent of a sense of superiority? I think that some people are able to do this but, definitely, not everyone. To do so, doesn't just mean that the whole of the past are just evaluated relatively, but just not assuming that one's subjectivity, within time and culture is the supreme point from which to view all else.
  • Miguel Hernández
    66

    I think empirical and cultural anthropology are scientific. The first is a type of paleontology and the second studies and observes current societies. However, history, as reality, does not exist. And as a discourse it is a type of narrative.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    @Gus Lamarch

    I think it is a fair comment to make in the current situation. Today ‘history’ (or rather ‘interpreting history’) has become the mainstay rather than simple scholarship (attempts at dry records of current events).

    You’ve not really sold me on the ‘ancients’ pessimism and modern ‘optimism’ - so to speak. I think in societies there are always somewhat equally pervading elements of both. The idea of a ‘Golden Age’ has persisted right through from ancient Greece even into the current colloquial “When I was a lad ...” which can be both a harking back to better days and/or referring to the benefits that people have today.

    With the advent of History human perspective has necessarily changed. Our arrival at the written/recorded word/thought our very idea and conceptualisation of a thing called ‘time’ has undoubtedly embedded itself in the heart of practically every human on the planet today. The empirical pencil we’ve mapped the world (weltanschuuang) with has become increasingly hard to erase/ignore.

    Isiah Berlin’s ideas may be related to what you’re looking at here? His thought on “Pluralism/monism” echoing something in what you’re saying here.
  • Gus Lamarch
    924
    If history and anthropology were the same disciplines, why would we teach them separately? Doesn't history teach more than just about humans?TaySan

    History, taking into account that it is independently developed by different cultures and different contexts, is part of anthropology as much as anthropology seems to be part of history.

    How can we study Man without studying his history and vice versa?
  • Gus Lamarch
    924
    It is rather limited if people do view history as if people in the past were always in worse conditions.Jack Cummins

    Ordinary people have no significant history knowledge for their lives. The masses are living in a constant present which is a full plate for their sovereigns.

    There were difficult periods, such as th, but there were great civilisations in the past, especially the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians.Jack Cummins

    The point is that, with the advent of the philosophy of Hegel and Comte, the view that, scientifically and technologically, humanity has witnessed an increasing "progress", which has been happening since the beginning of civilization, has become the norm. If humanity is accompanied by a "growing progress", then all humans in all societies that came before us are more primitive than we are. This thought may seem seductive, however, if analyzed the history - which, both Hegel and Comte based their thoughts on to refute it - of Man, it is proofable that the human being does not exist in a constant "progress", much less will reach a "technological singularity" in the future - here, I'm refuting Hegel -.

    Humanity moves through time randomly. The advances in the most diverse areas of knowledge, most of the times are made indirectly and without any focus on "progress" or "benefit of humanity" or "for the State", but for the individual will of Man.

    Hegel constructed a whole thought centered on the "historical absolute" which was projected in the physical world through the State, more precisely, the "Prussian State". His philosophy ends with the argument that "History has already played its part in human existence", therefore, we currently live in a "post-history" period.

    This - as it was refuted less than 10 years after his death by his young pupils - is completely erroneous. Hegel had ended up letting his ego run wild to the point that he had completely ignored his tripartite argument of "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" simply because his nature needed him to be at a "peak point" of humanity.

    Little did he know that his period had gone from being the synthesis of medieval germanic Christian society, to being the mere thesis, which would eventually result in the new synthesis - our period -. Therefore, it is visible that we, at this very moment, are the thesis of a new historical cycle.

    With all this being put, the point is clear that the core of history can only be Man, and the center of Anthropology, History.

    Therefore: History = Anthropology.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    Hopefully, those who study history seriously wouldn't go by Hegel's ideas on history. I did an evening course in anthropology and it did approach the whole subject from a historical angle.I think it is always a bit of a distortion when the various disciplines are split off so clearly. Of course, it is not possible to study all the disciplines, but the ideal may be if people read outside of their own specialised fields. I believe that it's important to read as widely as possible and see all the crossovers in thinking rather than just view from a narrow angle.
  • Deleted User
    0
    Studying man without studying his history seems pretty pointless to me. We are history and we are our history.

    Yet studying the universe or cosmos, and with that I mean everything in existence outside of Earth's atmosphere, is not linked to humans.
  • Gnomon
    3.7k
    "The subjectivity of history, in a matter that in different periods and in different cultures, was conceived in a way that mirrors the morals and values ​​of that whole culture, does demonstrate, through a logical argument, that history as a concept, its nothing more than anthropology, as its study differs from people to people?"Gus Lamarch
    You may have answered your own question, about teaching History & Anthropology as different academic subjects : "History" (the story of humanity) studies human cultures as abstract whole systems, while "Anthropology" (the science of humanity) studies the individual parts (people) of those systems. So, History is a Humanities subject, while Anthro is a Science topic. History allows for some subjective philosophical conjectures about "why" certain events happened, while Anthro (as an empirical reductive science) tries to avoid such generalizing and speculation about essences. However, "Philosophical Anthropology" may be what you have in mind, since it seems to be a specialized form of History. :smile:


    History : a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle:

    Philosophical Anthropology : the study of the nature and essence of humankind.
  • Kaiser Basileus
    52
    Not really. One can be a historian of What without caring a whit about how things developed or how they work.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.