Historicism seems to be based in an interesting, though weak, metaphysics. It takes on a poetic element and composes the fragments of narratives and places in order to design the future. Von Humboldt goes so far as the claim that a truly accurate representation of history is impossible because we would be able to tell the future. Though my interpretation may be a bit literal, the point resonates a deterministic tone which doesn't sit well. As I see it, there is an authoritive history which, indeed, represents a configuration of reality today. But this history seems to be doubled back on itself; it justifies itself within the context of history (cause) and the present (effect). However, I am interested in the admittance that history is fragmentary. There becomes a desire to see history as art and as a representation of humanity; things that are ultimately beautiful thoughts but I'm not sure if history is represented as art and humanity in its practical application today.
By this, I simply mean that history in historicisms view is a justification and an appologist; it is less a discourse and more a monologue for the present.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment