History begins with a question. It proceeds through research of the evidence filtered and critiqued by our own rationality and experience. It is the longing for the accurate reenactment of the event. To understand historical reading, or to write history, there is a need for us to understand the discipline behind history writing. As Robin George Collingwood wrote, "All history is the history of thought."
The book the “Idea of History” made a great impact to me as a future historian and I must say it has already contributed a lot to history writing. His historical work gave him a special interest in the activity of understanding and interpreting the past, an activity that he saw as continuous with our self-understanding and self-interpretation. I would have to agree with Collingwood’s theory on the idea of history for some reasons.
First, history according to Collingwood has an inside and an outside and these are two basic features of a historical event that we cannot deny. The outside is the physical manifestation. It’s the event by itself. What has happened? Who were the characters involved. So the outside of events is always the physical. The inside on the other hand is the rational thought behind the event. When we say rational we mean the thought process behind the event. What is the person thinking of when the event happens. Collingwood made a good definition of the inside and the outside by talking about the physical and the rationale behind the event. It’s as if to say that every event happens because a character is thinking of something that he may or may not expect to happen.
The second idea is the reenactment of past events. A central motif of R. G. Collingwood's philosophy of history is the idea that historical understanding requires a re-enactment of past experience. How do we go about recreating past events? That is where the argument of Collingwood comes into picture. The human past comes from interpreting primary sources -- the evidence. A historian is like a lawyer who argues a case by presenting evidence to produce a reasonable answer to questions. The problem, however, is that the answers may sometimes be the 'Truth,' sometimes not.
Historians require “active” critical thinking. Collingwood is telling us about “re-thinking” what the source or person in history was thinking and I quoted “a re-enactment in the historian’s own mind” I believe this is correct because historians do reenact past events. And I quote once more: “A historical imagination reconstructs events and this autonomous thinking may begin inside the historian but must be based on scrutiny of source-evidence. Yet this cannot be merely ‘scissors-and-paste’ history but must be re-thought through various sources and scenarios. The historian must locate the most accurate basis and interpret the outcome, not just present the sources pasted together.” If a historian cannot show that the reconstruction of the event is not as accurate or cannot be reconciled with the evidence, the historian must suspend judgment. Paul Edwards (1967) on the Encyclopedia of History states that “Historians must not only show what happened but also must be able to explain it. “
I couldn’t argue more on Collingwood because historians I would say need an open mind. There must also be some sort of imagination. However, the term imagination all depends on how well we are going to make use of it in history writing or up to what extent should our imagination aids in explaining past events? There should always be a critical analysis of the source. The work of Collingwood tells about history in itself. There is a need to present an event as fully and accurately as possible, how the people of that particular event saw themselves, and not the way the historian wants to present it.
In Collingwood’s term, we call it the a priori imagination. It is the event before the facts or before the event happens. It is the criteria that a historian sets for himself to describe an event. It is the criticism of evidence presented and recreating the event according to documents, evidences and of course the imagination. History is done in accordance with the a priori imagination. Historians of course may not have all the evidence possible but with imagination and sound judgment, they can narrate an event. There must be something to fill the gap and that is the imagination. Of course, Historians begin by wondering, not by knowing.
To sum up, I would say that Collingwood’s work is safe. It doesn’t require a great mind to understand his stand on the writing of history. His work although not as grandiose as the other philosopher’s of the past is still remarkable. WE can never deny the fact that history and the event that has happened in the past is a rational balance between evidence and of imagination. The retelling or narrating of the event should be a balance between a great source and a great imagination. It is not always an interpretation of the writer’s perspective but there exists the idea that it cannot be separated because those ideas and those events. History changes and there is always a flaw somewhere. It may never be perfectly re-created. But Collingwood had never denied the fact that history is about evidence but one thing that is good about his work is that it has given us the idea that historians need an experienced imagination to be able to recreate the past.
The book the “Idea of History” made a great impact to me as a future historian and I must say it has already contributed a lot to history writing. His historical work gave him a special interest in the activity of understanding and interpreting the past, an activity that he saw as continuous with our self-understanding and self-interpretation. I would have to agree with Collingwood’s theory on the idea of history for some reasons.
First, history according to Collingwood has an inside and an outside and these are two basic features of a historical event that we cannot deny. The outside is the physical manifestation. It’s the event by itself. What has happened? Who were the characters involved. So the outside of events is always the physical. The inside on the other hand is the rational thought behind the event. When we say rational we mean the thought process behind the event. What is the person thinking of when the event happens. Collingwood made a good definition of the inside and the outside by talking about the physical and the rationale behind the event. It’s as if to say that every event happens because a character is thinking of something that he may or may not expect to happen.
The second idea is the reenactment of past events. A central motif of R. G. Collingwood's philosophy of history is the idea that historical understanding requires a re-enactment of past experience. How do we go about recreating past events? That is where the argument of Collingwood comes into picture. The human past comes from interpreting primary sources -- the evidence. A historian is like a lawyer who argues a case by presenting evidence to produce a reasonable answer to questions. The problem, however, is that the answers may sometimes be the 'Truth,' sometimes not.
Historians require “active” critical thinking. Collingwood is telling us about “re-thinking” what the source or person in history was thinking and I quoted “a re-enactment in the historian’s own mind” I believe this is correct because historians do reenact past events. And I quote once more: “A historical imagination reconstructs events and this autonomous thinking may begin inside the historian but must be based on scrutiny of source-evidence. Yet this cannot be merely ‘scissors-and-paste’ history but must be re-thought through various sources and scenarios. The historian must locate the most accurate basis and interpret the outcome, not just present the sources pasted together.” If a historian cannot show that the reconstruction of the event is not as accurate or cannot be reconciled with the evidence, the historian must suspend judgment. Paul Edwards (1967) on the Encyclopedia of History states that “Historians must not only show what happened but also must be able to explain it. “
I couldn’t argue more on Collingwood because historians I would say need an open mind. There must also be some sort of imagination. However, the term imagination all depends on how well we are going to make use of it in history writing or up to what extent should our imagination aids in explaining past events? There should always be a critical analysis of the source. The work of Collingwood tells about history in itself. There is a need to present an event as fully and accurately as possible, how the people of that particular event saw themselves, and not the way the historian wants to present it.
In Collingwood’s term, we call it the a priori imagination. It is the event before the facts or before the event happens. It is the criteria that a historian sets for himself to describe an event. It is the criticism of evidence presented and recreating the event according to documents, evidences and of course the imagination. History is done in accordance with the a priori imagination. Historians of course may not have all the evidence possible but with imagination and sound judgment, they can narrate an event. There must be something to fill the gap and that is the imagination. Of course, Historians begin by wondering, not by knowing.
To sum up, I would say that Collingwood’s work is safe. It doesn’t require a great mind to understand his stand on the writing of history. His work although not as grandiose as the other philosopher’s of the past is still remarkable. WE can never deny the fact that history and the event that has happened in the past is a rational balance between evidence and of imagination. The retelling or narrating of the event should be a balance between a great source and a great imagination. It is not always an interpretation of the writer’s perspective but there exists the idea that it cannot be separated because those ideas and those events. History changes and there is always a flaw somewhere. It may never be perfectly re-created. But Collingwood had never denied the fact that history is about evidence but one thing that is good about his work is that it has given us the idea that historians need an experienced imagination to be able to recreate the past.
_________________________________________________________________
Sources:
Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Pp. 205-334 .
Staloff, D. (1995). The search for a meaningful past philosophies, theories and interpretations.
NY: The Teaching Co.
Roger Collingwood. www.wikipedia.com/ Collingwood. Retrieved September 14, 2008
Collingwood. http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/r_g_collingwood_history. Retrieved September 14, 2008
Paul Edwards (ed) Collingwood. The encyclopedia of social sciences. NY: Macmillan Company 1967
Staloff, D. (1995). The search for a meaningful past philosophies, theories and interpretations.
NY: The Teaching Co.
Roger Collingwood. www.wikipedia.com/ Collingwood. Retrieved September 14, 2008
Collingwood. http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/r_g_collingwood_history. Retrieved September 14, 2008
Paul Edwards (ed) Collingwood. The encyclopedia of social sciences. NY: Macmillan Company 1967
No comments:
Post a Comment