The book Narration and Knowledge by Anton Danto is an attempt to explain history. He believed that history is a narrative and I can’t oppose that idea because history is indeed a story. It tells us of an event that has happened in a narrative presentation.
According to Danto two distinct kind of inquiry are covered by the expression “philosophy of history.” These are the substantive and analytical philosophy. Danto made a clear distinction between the two and I would say it is a clear distinction. Substantive philosophy deals with the event in itself. Of the account of what happened in the past. On the other hand, analytical philosophy deals with the some concept on the practice of history.
According to his writing, and I quote “a philosophy of history seeks to give an account of the whole story.” (Danto, 1985) I believe that what historians indeed need to have an account of the story if not the whole of the past. That is why we need evidence and some sources to fill in the gaps that we need to recreate the story. He even mentioned the two patterns that a historian can use to rewrite history; these are the descriptive and the explanatory theory. I believe that these two are always connected in the sense that a historian should not only create history but also be able to explain it.
Another statement that I found interesting is when he said that historians are concerned only with the past. And I quote: “for all our present data come from the past; we cannot gather data from the future.” (Danto) I would agree on this statement for the simple reason that history is about the past. Probably, we can predict or tell about the future but not prophesy about what will happen or what the future will be like. But it is distorting to think that all the data that we are recreating are data to be used for future philosophers because it is important in the present. It is to satisfy our hunger for information and our hunger for knowledge. Danto presented that historical accounts are narrative in structure. I would agree because it is a sequence of events.
Danto, in his book also opposes three arguments in history. The first is a sort of positivist view. This positivist view states that history is meaningless. I would have to disagree with whomever who said this. I believe that history even if it cannot be recreated completely is still important. It is still a source of a great chunk of knowledge.
On the other hand, history is not just bunk. This is the second argument. That everything is created so as to recreate the past. This according to Bertrand Russell is what history is about. Danto’s smart reply answer is to say that everything is created like a bunk too. Just like all the sciences. “It might or might not have” according to Danto. (1985) and for that we can make a true statement of the past or perhaps we cannot just as Danto might have said it better.
The third charge and what Danto thinks is very serious is that belief that history is biased according to the political or personal agenda of the historian. Like everything written down is according to the prejudice of the historian. I would have to say that the recreation of the past is not always accurate for there are distortions somewhere made on the part of the historian who would like history to appear according to his will. But as what Danto might have put it and I quote: “For they are not saying something like ‘everything is crooked but only a certain class of things are crooked. Then there might be a class of straight things, which would make it intelligible. “
Danto wants to argue that history is neither an art nor a science but rather the elements of each. It has artistic elements in that it is a narrative, it is a story. And all stories can be told sometime with flaws. Like every narrative, it has a beginning and an end. It comes with conflict with something else to make the story more interesting and results in the end of the story. And as Danto quoted: “The past is known through a correct interpretation of something given, including certain given characters which are marks of past ness.” (Danto 1985) History has a beginning, middle and an end. We may have different views on how a particular story happened but nonetheless it is still history. We have to start from something and explain how it happened. But there is always a surface and there is something beneath those events that makes history really fascinating and endless.
According to Danto two distinct kind of inquiry are covered by the expression “philosophy of history.” These are the substantive and analytical philosophy. Danto made a clear distinction between the two and I would say it is a clear distinction. Substantive philosophy deals with the event in itself. Of the account of what happened in the past. On the other hand, analytical philosophy deals with the some concept on the practice of history.
According to his writing, and I quote “a philosophy of history seeks to give an account of the whole story.” (Danto, 1985) I believe that what historians indeed need to have an account of the story if not the whole of the past. That is why we need evidence and some sources to fill in the gaps that we need to recreate the story. He even mentioned the two patterns that a historian can use to rewrite history; these are the descriptive and the explanatory theory. I believe that these two are always connected in the sense that a historian should not only create history but also be able to explain it.
Another statement that I found interesting is when he said that historians are concerned only with the past. And I quote: “for all our present data come from the past; we cannot gather data from the future.” (Danto) I would agree on this statement for the simple reason that history is about the past. Probably, we can predict or tell about the future but not prophesy about what will happen or what the future will be like. But it is distorting to think that all the data that we are recreating are data to be used for future philosophers because it is important in the present. It is to satisfy our hunger for information and our hunger for knowledge. Danto presented that historical accounts are narrative in structure. I would agree because it is a sequence of events.
Danto, in his book also opposes three arguments in history. The first is a sort of positivist view. This positivist view states that history is meaningless. I would have to disagree with whomever who said this. I believe that history even if it cannot be recreated completely is still important. It is still a source of a great chunk of knowledge.
On the other hand, history is not just bunk. This is the second argument. That everything is created so as to recreate the past. This according to Bertrand Russell is what history is about. Danto’s smart reply answer is to say that everything is created like a bunk too. Just like all the sciences. “It might or might not have” according to Danto. (1985) and for that we can make a true statement of the past or perhaps we cannot just as Danto might have said it better.
The third charge and what Danto thinks is very serious is that belief that history is biased according to the political or personal agenda of the historian. Like everything written down is according to the prejudice of the historian. I would have to say that the recreation of the past is not always accurate for there are distortions somewhere made on the part of the historian who would like history to appear according to his will. But as what Danto might have put it and I quote: “For they are not saying something like ‘everything is crooked but only a certain class of things are crooked. Then there might be a class of straight things, which would make it intelligible. “
Danto wants to argue that history is neither an art nor a science but rather the elements of each. It has artistic elements in that it is a narrative, it is a story. And all stories can be told sometime with flaws. Like every narrative, it has a beginning and an end. It comes with conflict with something else to make the story more interesting and results in the end of the story. And as Danto quoted: “The past is known through a correct interpretation of something given, including certain given characters which are marks of past ness.” (Danto 1985) History has a beginning, middle and an end. We may have different views on how a particular story happened but nonetheless it is still history. We have to start from something and explain how it happened. But there is always a surface and there is something beneath those events that makes history really fascinating and endless.
_______________________________________________________________
Sources:
Danto, A.C. (1985). Narration and Knowledge. Columbia University.
Staloff, D. (1995). The search for a meaningful past philosophies, theories and interpretations.
NY: The Teaching Co.
NY: The Teaching Co.
No comments:
Post a Comment