What is the nature of history
What is the nature of history? - According to historians Sartono Kartodirdjo, the fact of history is limited by two meanings, that is, the history of the objective and subjective history.
- Objective history is the past event or incident for what it is.
- The history of the reconstruction is the result of subjective or interpretive historian over the events of the past that.
The history we read and learn at this time is the history of reconstruction (interpretation) historians aka subjective history. The events of this past can not speak for themselves, but rather through the mouth. From them, we know human life in the past.
History of objectivity that is the real events that ever happened, whereas the subjective histories is a story or narrative about events that delivered by the offender or by the researcher.
Nevertheless, the interpretation of historians about the events of the past are expected to describe the event for what it is. Objectivity means researchers produce findings that as closely as possible to the actual reality of the events which he thoroughly.
That's the ethical obligations at the same time major challenges each person, especially a historian researching the history of an event, i.e. generating subjective research possible.
To achieve brought, historians use the scientific method to test the authenticity of the existing evidence, checking the truth, comparing it with other findings, and so on.
There are three things that can hinder the realization brought history.
First: historical research involves the interests of certain political interests, for example, economic, social and cultural. Because of that interest, the researcher is consciously and intentionally perverting the historical facts.
First: historical research involves the interests of certain political interests, for example, economic, social and cultural. Because of that interest, the researcher is consciously and intentionally perverting the historical facts.
Second: the researchers incorporated the feelings, values, tastes, or his personal ideology into the research process.
Third: the researchers don't rule the field in thoroughly.
Furthermore, because of the history of the interpretation of the results of that historian, whereas each historian has his own point of view against the same event, also it can be said that the truth in the history it is not static, but dynamic.
It is because the results of research that has been done before remain open to question, debate, sued, and thus was born a new point of view against the same event.
So on a more recently it could be questioned by the latest research, which in turn spawned a new point of view again.
That's a bit of a review of the nature of history, may be useful.
Read also: The three principal elements of the history
Read also: The three principal elements of the history
