I am interested in history and I use philosophical arguments, I get into the abstract side of things rather than stick with the concrete.
As I was reading thourgh the comments here and thought about how I relate to history and philosophy I came up with a few thoughts. I am interested in both history and philosophy, but I'm not particularly well schooled in either discipline. (I'm a primary school teacher, so I've had exposure to both, but not in great depth.) When I thought about how I think about/discuss history, I realised that I get more caught up in why things happened or why they happened the way that they did, rather than pondering the specifics of what happened. Does that make sense?
The why question isn't necessarily not a historical question... HIstory, if done correctly, is more than just "what happened"--but should also make you understand why it happened the way it did... just like when you read/hear a real story, it is not just a recitation of facts like a police report, but instead gives you background info and has a coherent narrative that you can follow and gives you insight into causation...
Comments 12
I am interested in history and I use philosophical arguments, I get into the abstract side of things rather than stick with the concrete.
As I was reading thourgh the comments here and thought about how I relate to history and philosophy I came up with a few thoughts.
I am interested in both history and philosophy, but I'm not particularly well schooled in either discipline. (I'm a primary school teacher, so I've had exposure to both, but not in great depth.)
When I thought about how I think about/discuss history, I realised that I get more caught up in why things happened or why they happened the way that they did, rather than pondering the specifics of what happened. Does that make sense?
Reply
Does that make sense? :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment