事実の客観性と関係の客観性 : E. H. Carrの歴史哲学批判(間崎万里先生頌寿記念)
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
Prof. Carr says, "objectivity in history cannot be an objectivity of fact, but only of relation". It is correct so far as this term "relation" indicates the relation between historian and facts, but in this case we cannot find specific reason for using the term "relation." Moreover, Prof. Carr lays special emphasis on the relation between past, present and future. We do not support the theory from a logical point of view that there is an unique form of knowledge appropriated for history between past and present, much less the theory of Prof. Carr with his annexing future to past and present. He then goes astray, I suppose, out of the right path of his scientific argument. He asserts that only the future can afford the key to the past; that only the historian who has a prospective insight into the future can attain the objective understanding of the past; and that every historian, therefore, has to project his vision into the future. His is, it seems to me, a sort of intuitionism or illumination theory. And he speaks of an ultimate objectivity to which we can find ourselves approaching and in which persuit he finds a historical progress. Doesn't this way of thinking sound somewhat idealistic ? And he makes an optimistic prediction as to a future progress of human history; "the historian of the 1920s was nearer to objective judgment than the historian of the 1880s, and the historian of today is nearer than the historian of the 1920s: the historian of the year 2000 may be nearer still". This prediction is, though convictional, not scientific. After all, Prof. Carr gives good advice for all historians to have "the sense of direction in history", "the pervading sense of a world in perpetual motion" and "the bold readiness to present fundamental challenges" to the status quo. But, by his careless introduction of some senses and attitudes into his generally accepted theories, he loses logical consistency in the course of his argument and fails in providing a well-regulated form for his discussion ; though his attitude itself, as of an "Ideolog", is rightly worthy of respect.
- 慶應義塾大学の論文
著者
関連論文
- 『比較文明と歴史哲学』
- 草創期の三田史学-1-歴史観の視点から (三田史学の100年を語る) -- (第1回座談会(1990年6月16日(土)))
- 福沢諭吉と田中萃一郎の歴史観
- 西洋史の先学たち(一)(第一回座談会,三田史学の百年を語る)
- 草創期の三田史学(一) : 歴史観の視点から(第一回座談会,三田史学の百年を語る)
- 慶応義塾と歴史哲学(文学部創設百周年記念論文集I)
- 刊行のことば
- 「理解」から「説明」へ : 歴史的認識の一問題として
- A. Donagan and B. Donagan, Philosophy of History, A Macmillan Series, 1965 / G. H. Nadel (ed.), Studies in the Philosophy of History, Harper Torchbooks, 1965(REVIEW)
- 事態の論理をこえて
- 歴史哲学の二つのアンソロジー(批評と紹介)
- 事実の客観性と関係の客観性 : E. H. Carrの歴史哲学批判(間崎万里先生頌寿記念)
- 「歴史主義」の意味の混亂(史學科開設五十周年記念)
- 歴史事象の一回限り性について
- Joseph Lortz, Geschichte der Kirche, in ideengeschichtlicher Betrachtung, Munster Westfalen, 17 und 18 Auflage, 1953
- 歴史の科學性の限界
- ランケ史學の根柢に對する歴史哲學的一考察
- ボナヴェントゥラの類比的直觀
- 新プラトン的『流出説』の一問題
- 歴史的説明の論理の問題(橋本孝先生古希記念論文集)