tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post2951340418939235215..comments2024-01-02T23:22:21.430-05:00Comments on The Guild Review: Taylor on HistoryAaron Lindermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15992073027586818751noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-61888588873610911542009-01-19T16:23:00.000-05:002009-01-19T16:23:00.000-05:00The notion of history as a thing unto itself is a ...The notion of history as a thing unto itself is a fairly new one: the ancients and medievals considered it a subset of rhetoric, and thus as much a means toward an end as an end in itself.<BR/><BR/>This fall we had a bit of an argument in one of my classes about theories of history and the way they have changed over time. I contend that such theories are really philosophy - philosophy <I>of history</I>, to be sure, but still philosophy - and not history, per se. This is not to say that they have nothing of value to the historian, but might be akin to a biological study of crops which is then picked up by a historian to help him understand ancient agriculture: it's a study that uses the tools of biology, but can be useful to the historian as well. Now, a history of theories of history... Well, some would call that history of philosophy or history of ideas (some use the term "intellectual history," though hopefully all history is intellectual), though it also has a lot to do with historiography - the study of how history is told. Definitely a blurry area...Aaron Lindermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15992073027586818751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-21836055392986885842009-01-17T20:14:00.000-05:002009-01-17T20:14:00.000-05:00This article touches on my recent reading habits. ...This article touches on my recent reading habits. My reading has been invigorated of late due to a recent wave of good non-fiction work, such as "Conspiracy of Fools" about Enron, "Hoover Dam" (although that one is older), "Devil in the White City" about the Chicago World Fair, and "The Soul of Science" which is a book on the history of science (especially the fall and fracturing of Mathematics). There's also a recent book containing excellent examples of "narrative" journalism called "The New Kings of Non-Fiction" that I have been enjoying.<BR/><BR/>It's weird to me that "history" can be spoken of as a thing unto itself. History of what? To show what? So often we just swallow someone's definition of what history is. Why is the history of science so neglected? What about the history of schools of thought toward history? Anyway, it's just been on my mind.Jeremy Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07963963937784611544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-82360256285060902912009-01-14T11:26:00.000-05:002009-01-14T11:26:00.000-05:00I think Taylor's comment pertains more to the grea...I think Taylor's comment pertains more to the greatness of the men than to the quality of their rule. The Darwinian competition of elections at least brings talented - if not usually moral or selfless - men into office. (Failing that, it at least brings the talented chiefs of staff, the powers behind the political thrones, into positions of power.) Thus, his point is more of a historian's than a political philosopher's: democracies may not produce better results, but you at least see more talent running around.Aaron Lindermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15992073027586818751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-57753575680928120002009-01-12T20:31:00.000-05:002009-01-12T20:31:00.000-05:00My rejoinder to Taylor would be that experience sh...My rejoinder to Taylor would be that experience shows teaches that popular suffrage is just as poor a way of producing able leaders.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10825489013036249581noreply@blogger.com