History is the past analyzed and recorded, it is not everything that ever happened or everything that historians have already written about. While the existence of subjectivity in history is not often questioned many philosophers have rejected the possibility of objective historical knowledge. This essay seeks to explain the ways in which history consists of both elements of objectivity and subjectivity.
Objectivity refer to the lack of bias. With this being said there is no objective truth in history. According to Bevir "Many philosophers have rejected the possibility of objective historical knowledge on the grounds that there is no given past against which to judge rival interpretations." Since we cannot repeat the past there is no way …show more content…
The criticism of other historians work can enable him/her to analyze and thrive where others have fallen short. It also gives them the opportunity to check the validity of their information.
Non-bias is the act showing no prejudices or emotional imbalance with regards to a story.While it may be easy for a historian to insert his or her own personal experiences into the research makes your research lose validity. The historians job is to analyze past and not to reflect on how he feels about it or to become emotionally invested in it.
Neutrality refers to refraining from adopting a position on the subject matter. In writing an account of the past a historian may form an opinion. This opinion should not enter the historians work as it can sway the reader into formulating an opinion based on the historians'. When a historian adds his or her personal position on the subject matter this can be seen as a move from a historian to a journalist. Ideological considerations such as theological, philosophical, materialistic or any other intellectual bias might distort his vision that is, he is not free from his own …show more content…
On the other hand, even if the number of robberies in one day is mentioned, the reason for describing a certain robbery is both legitimate and due, because a huge robbery may affect the lives of many and may reveal a new strategy which was invented by a robber. What a member of the society does which has no consequences on others is privately biographical and not an object or reporter concern. If two individuals lock themselves in their house and smoke themselves to death, or keep on stabbing themselves to death, these are private or biographical matters that are not the concern of the reporter or for that matter of legislators or of priests; on the other a psychologist, an employer, or a family member may be concerned with these events. The point is that those events are not facts of social interaction, political action, or operating in the world. They are not deeds of the public life, and, therefore they are not a Chronicler's object, whether he knows of them or not. If we want to expand this object so as to include the biographies of the citizens and the anthropology and biology of their organisms, we can do so, but then we must beware of what we do not report: a chronicle might give us a very distorted picture of a people and would be pointless to have
Objectivity refer to the lack of bias. With this being said there is no objective truth in history. According to Bevir "Many philosophers have rejected the possibility of objective historical knowledge on the grounds that there is no given past against which to judge rival interpretations." Since we cannot repeat the past there is no way …show more content…
The criticism of other historians work can enable him/her to analyze and thrive where others have fallen short. It also gives them the opportunity to check the validity of their information.
Non-bias is the act showing no prejudices or emotional imbalance with regards to a story.While it may be easy for a historian to insert his or her own personal experiences into the research makes your research lose validity. The historians job is to analyze past and not to reflect on how he feels about it or to become emotionally invested in it.
Neutrality refers to refraining from adopting a position on the subject matter. In writing an account of the past a historian may form an opinion. This opinion should not enter the historians work as it can sway the reader into formulating an opinion based on the historians'. When a historian adds his or her personal position on the subject matter this can be seen as a move from a historian to a journalist. Ideological considerations such as theological, philosophical, materialistic or any other intellectual bias might distort his vision that is, he is not free from his own …show more content…
On the other hand, even if the number of robberies in one day is mentioned, the reason for describing a certain robbery is both legitimate and due, because a huge robbery may affect the lives of many and may reveal a new strategy which was invented by a robber. What a member of the society does which has no consequences on others is privately biographical and not an object or reporter concern. If two individuals lock themselves in their house and smoke themselves to death, or keep on stabbing themselves to death, these are private or biographical matters that are not the concern of the reporter or for that matter of legislators or of priests; on the other a psychologist, an employer, or a family member may be concerned with these events. The point is that those events are not facts of social interaction, political action, or operating in the world. They are not deeds of the public life, and, therefore they are not a Chronicler's object, whether he knows of them or not. If we want to expand this object so as to include the biographies of the citizens and the anthropology and biology of their organisms, we can do so, but then we must beware of what we do not report: a chronicle might give us a very distorted picture of a people and would be pointless to have