Philosophy of History

The word for it is historiography.

I think each school (e.g. empiricism, annals, postmodernism, etc) has it's positives and negatives.

This is a good read about some of the debates:

https://analepsis.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/re-thinking-history.pdf

>>2581305
Yes, I know and am familiar with this. The recent discussion is about presentism, at least in my surroundings. But I am curious about opinions instead of references to different schools:-). But thanks though

>>2581346

Sorry have a bump.

What's presentism?

File: Screenshot_20170329-140853.png (362KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1440x2560px

>>2581385
It is trying to focus more on the present, looking at history with a different perspective whilst Trying to avoid determinism or laying anylaw in history. It is quit a challeng. It is still very open to critic and relative new. It is finding its bearings and limitations and not I am not quit sure what to think of it yet, haven't master the ideas quit. But I see merit in it as long as it remains transparant.

Here is some lit on it.

>>2581465
Ow, that list is kind of the beginning of the discussion. There are more recent works as well.

>>2581305
Philosophy of history is distinct from historiography, it covers questions such as: what are the constituents of history? What does historical knowledge consist of and how do we acquire it?

>>2581542
True, but as study of the historians methode it is a part of the philosophy of history when you question the existing methodes. But true they are not the same.

>>2581542

Pretty sure historiography covers all that

>>2581043
I would like to believe that studying history better equips people for the future. Looking at the past, you can see what went right and what went wrong.

I believe that this is incredibly important not only for positive statecraft but even forming your own personality. Seeing the positive traits of a historical people and copying it.

Of course there is also the practical side of studying history, such studying great militaries or economic booms, how they came about, and how they preformed. The follow up question is usually how can we make it happen again, which we can never answer without an adept understanding of history.

Maybe im just rambling but i believe it is much more than a personal hobby that has no value in the world of science or something like such

>>2583686
Ow yes, I totally agree. You are not rambling. By looking at the past, you can put yourself in position to the present. Not only do you see positive traits, you also create a sense of time. Time has the tendency to go really fast, but in fact it goes really slow. By diving into time, you get a sense of it.

The practical side is as relevant I believe but it needs a framework to work within. The practical side pushes the knowledge about the past. But historians, I belief, are afraid to claim their discipline as a science. It has a distinct methode within social science and so it is more than a hobby (always starts out with a hobby or general interest in the past). But I belief that historians are to afraid to enter public debate with the fear that they come across as not objective or something.

Society as a whole could benefit from a sense of time and historical development within it. It would bring a nuance and critisism into conversation and selfcritisism without murdering discussion because someone holds other views. It creates a perspective, where you can place yourself within your surrounding .