I think that Emily was getting at something really important when she recognized the connection between truth and history. Many of us judge history's merit on its objective truth...but if we believe that the truth is subjective because everyone has different perceptions, then the whole basis of history disintegrates. Also, I believe that America is a mixture of "hard" and "soft" culture. Some Americans live luxuriously, and others with the bare minimum for survival. We are incredibly ignorant (in general) as a society, and yet our government holds extreme power in the world (which someone already said.) Potentially our government is a hard culture and our middle/upper class is a soft culture? Either way, I think that America embodies a sort of dichotomy between "hard" and "soft" values.
My answer to the posed question has changed a few times while I was reading the class responses but I think I have (mostly) settled on Thucydides as the "father of history".
I think that while Herodotus cultivated a new way of addressing the need to create a narrative of public memory, Thucydides gave the study of history a gravity that comes with a more systematic search for "truth", using "the same rigour and respect for truth and evidence as modern-day historians." (p.25) That rigor of documentation creates sources for future study that are more readily acceptable and accessible. I think that science implies systematic reasoning and application of critical thought, and armed with that definition I would agree that "[Thucydides is] in the category of history as science".
In response to Travis, I think that it is arguably necessary that we do both, examine their work in relationship with our modern concepts but also be able to separate our preconceived notions, from their meanings of "history" and "science" which were evolving along with their work.
I was thinking the exact same thing as Travis. We spend so much time defining things at this school and I feel like it usually takes the whole mod to fully understand the definitions of the words we keep using over and over again, so hopefully in five weeks we can answer that, Travis.
To answer the question we were given, I would have to say that father time (please don't laugh) is the father of history. In the writings of Aristotle, Herodotus, Hecataeus, time is the only thing that is constantly moving and constantly being recorded, studied, and analyzed. Time is one of the only things that as humans we can say has no beginning or end because its eternal, (although Aristotle says the universe is eternal as well), But as Keaton said, history is not forgetting, and if history is simply remembering, then time is not at all the same as history because more and more things are being forgotten every second were alive, but at the same time, one could argue that a probably equal amount of things are being remembered and recorded, so I think that time is literary history, only its constantly changing. I'm not sure if this will make any sense at all but I gave it my best explain what I was saying.
In response to Hannah (who was responding to Emily)-- I think that "hard" and "soft" are like Aristotelian contraries, in reality nothing is really one or the other, but more of a spectrum or combination.
Karl, I think that both Herodotus and Thucydides are subjective. Both had to, at some point, rely on their own interpretations in their works (especially in the oratio recta and the oratio obliqua). Thucydides's opinions on the moral and social breakdown of Corcyra is assumably different from the opinions of the Corcyrians themselves. I also think that they are subjective simply because they had to choose what to write about. Again, Thucydides only wrote on a very specific topic, a "fierce, laser-like" focus on war, and didn't focus on other aspects of the time. Of course he had reasons for doing this, but the choice displays subjectivity.
First Let me just get out here that I think Thucydides is the absolute Father of modern history. Upon checking the forum I see that most people seem to think otherwise, but let me ask you all this: When was the last time you read higher level history text that was "pleasing to the ear?" I can't recall a time either. But those same boring texts are the ones chocked full with the most information, and those texts are the ones that get referenced when one attempts to make an argument about history. When was the last time you saw "American History Through The Eyes of Fun!" referenced? (this not a real book but you get my point)
Also upon viewing the forum I also saw some discussion of the hard and soft cultures which also caught my attention. I believe it was Jen who said it is no longer relevant to todays culture. I have to disagree. Look at America in the past decade, prior to 2008. Wealthy, happy, anyone could own a home! (more on that later) In other words we were living in bliss. As Herodotus said, this kind of mentality breeds arrogance. And arrogant we were, dislodging a dictator in Iran because We COULD (uh!… and we wanted a little leg up on the oil problem). Between us believing that nothing bad could ever happen and everyone should own a house and we can dictate the course of the earth, look what happened? The economy failed, yemen is now rallying against us and the state of morale of this country is at its worst since the vietnam war. Yes we are not conquering like in those days (arguable) but Herotodus' theory still holds very true: Wealth and happiness breeds ignorance. Ignorance breeds arrogance: arrogance leads to downfall.Whew that was rant. Also some other interesting points i found interesting were that we in todays Society view historians as people who have to be as impartial as possible. Back then, I think at one point Herotodus declared during "Histories" his bias. He even questioned accounts of what individuals told him. All in all interesting. Also I'd like to agree with Jeremy about The Father of history being defined depending on the individual. While for me cold hard facts are the most important part of history, for some perhaps making it more appealing is important. Also i would like to disagree with Karl. Herotodus is not a reporter. While reporters are encouraged to sensationalize in todays society they are shunned from telling absolute lies. That does not fly. There is evidence however, that Herotodus told outright lies about many events happening between greeks, persians, egyptians, russians the whole lot. I would lable Herotodus as promoting slander, not reporting.
A question for all of you: Do Plato and Aristotle match with Herotodus and Thucydides in terms of value? Because both Herotodus and Aristotle deviated from their predecessors does that make them similar?
[/i]
I haven't finished both parts of the reading yet but I thought it'd be better to add (even if it were a little) something rather than nothing.
I would say that Herodotus was the "father" of history. One reason being that he takes into account the affect that people have on the course of history; and in an explicit but also honest and authentic way.
Also, (as the reading says) his practices are ones that have remained effective and relevant to the documentation of history.
I'll keep it short and sweet. Sorry if this comment's totally irrelevant at this point in the conversation!
Let me throw this out there, before I go back and read all of the classes posts.
As to whether or not Herodotus is the father of history? No. Was he the father of historians? Absolutely. I mean, he had flaws as an objective reporter and researcher, and was prone to exaggeration, picking poor sources, not citing said sources, and going on long tangents.... but he was pretty much the first of his kind. He laid the foundation for a lot of what we consider to be absolutely necessary in reporting history.
Yes, Thucydides probably did a better job of being the standard of historian we expect today, but he rocked the books after Herodotus. And yes, Herodotus was more of a tourist/amateur blogger than an historian, but still. You've got to give precedence to Herodotus for doing it first. If someone did something perfectly the very first time, then there would be nothing to work off of, nothing to make better.
Evolution.
And as to the question of what is history? I'd LIKE to say that it's an objective report of events that took place in the past, but no way. History is a collection of biased views on the past, pieced together into separate contexts, resulting in vastly different pieces. History is like a fine wine, great bread. You make it from the same stuff, grapes, wheat, but depending on how you make it and where you get your ingredients, you're going to get something different every time.
I would say that both have important places in the documentation of history; it is most useful to have a very detailed history as well as interpretations, barring actual personal experiences from the time period in question.
Herodotus, while considered less of a historian, can still be the father of history, by simply writing about the events of the past. His writing is invaluable for someone who wants a less colored view of a long gone time period, and can be an aid a reader's decision to accept one viewpoint or another.
Thucydides, in my opinion, seems to be more the father of historians, as they are today, and provides a social context that is just as valuable, if hard to rely on alone.
Grace's and Keaton's posts really got me thinking...Is the pursuit of historians (recording history) futile in the sense that history can never keep up with time, and bias can never be reconciled with the absolute, intangible Truth? Also, in the sense that what is written before effects what will be written in the future, history has already been tainted and corrupted by unresolved biases that persist over time, gradually distorting the foundations upon which every subsequent generation of history is built. Finally, in response to Nate's point about Herodotus being a reporter, I'd like to ask: Are historians more like journalists, reporters, or storytellers? To me, each of these three terms have different connotations, so the question is worth asking.
Karl, I think that both Herodotus and Thucydides are subjective. Both had to, at some point, rely on their own interpretations in their works (especially in the oratio recta and the oratio obliqua). Thucydides's opinions on the moral and social breakdown of Corcyra is assumably different from the opinions of the Corcyrians themselves. I also think that they are subjective simply because they had to choose what to write about. Again, Thucydides only wrote on a very specific topic, a "fierce, laser-like" focus on war, and didn't focus on other aspects of the time. Of course he had reasons for doing this, but the choice displays subjectivity.
then I'd like to amend my statement as both must maintain an air of subjectivity as both are interpreting and deciding what to report, but I felt that Thucydides cornered himself into doing so without allowing open ended questions
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
but I thought it'd be better to add (even if it were a little) something rather than nothing.
