HT Jos. Pearce who mentioned this GKC quote in a brief essay on history.
“Teach, to the young, men’s enduring truths, and let the learned amuse themselves with their passing errors.”
Pearce indirectly slams "Common Core", but directly attacks what passes for "history education" these days. Not that he's the first; GKC, Belloc, Waugh, and C S Lewis all saw this, too.
...three distinct facets of historical reality are absolutely necessary, namely historical chronology, historical mechanics and historical philosophy, i.e. when things happened, how things happened and why
things happened. The last of these, though it is dependent factually on
the other two, is the most important. If we don’t know why things
happened history remains devoid of meaning; it makes no sense. As such,
historians must have knowledge of the history of belief. They must know what people believed when they did the things that they did in order to know why
they acted as they did. They must have empathy with the great ideas
that shaped human history, even if they don’t have sympathy with them....
For someone to understand wars (e.g.), it is a paucity to understand them only in terms of "power" or "territory". Some were decidedly not "just about" those matters. Any understanding of Western civilization is horribly deficient without an understanding of the Judaeo-Christian/Aristotelian ethos.
Think "Common Core" will remedy that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
“In order to avoid the chronological snobbery that presumes the superiority of the present over the past and which causes this lack of proportion and focus, historians must see history through the eyes of the past, not the present. They must put themselves into the minds and hearts of the protagonists they are studying; and to do this adequately they must have knowledge of philosophy and theology in order to understand their own academic discipline and in order to remain disciplined in their study of it. An ignorance of philosophy and theology means an ignorance of history.”
Pearce created a classic strawman argument, and Dad29 bought it hook, line, and sinker. The nature of history is to be exact and impartial, void of passion, unbiased by interest, and persistent to the truth--which takes into account the past, present, AND future (on equal footing) by recognizing patterns and trends and making qualified statements about the impact of those patterns and trends. Most certainly, historians ought to be well versed in philosophy and theology, but they are not beholden to viewing events simply through that prism, or for that matter focus squarely on yesteryear’s occurrences. The objectivity of the historian directly comes under fire when he or she judges events exclusively (at worst) or primarily (at best) through a Judaeo-Christian/Aristotelian ethos.
“All historical writing, even the most honest, is unconsciously subjective, since every age is bound, in spite of itself, to make the dead perform whatever tricks it finds necessary for its own peace of mind.”--Carl Lotus Becker
You should know about 'creating straw men.'
"Most certainly, historians ought to be well versed in philosophy and theology, but they are not beholden to viewing events simply through that prism,..."
Not Pearce, not GKC, nor Belloc EVER suggested "simply through that prism."
Try again sometime.
"Any understanding of Western civilization is horribly deficient without an understanding of the Judaeo-Christian/Aristotelian ethos."
YOU made the inference, Cochise.
Evidently you missed "reading comprehension" in grade school. Or maybe you're not through grade school yet.
Post a Comment