What kind of history do you prefer? (powered by Nietzsche)

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

In his classical writing, On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, Nietzsche claims, that

history is necessary to the living man in three ways: in relation to his action and struggle, his conservatism and reverence, his suffering and his desire for deliverance. These three relations answer to the three kinds of history so far as they can be distinguished —the monumental, the antiquarian, and the critical.

We cannot discuss the background philosophy of this statement, but let's take a brief look at each type, its advantages and disadvantages.

Caricature of Nietzsche

The first type of history is monumental history. This type of history, is The History (with big letters), which serves life in that in its proper amount, it inspires or encourages the striving of individuals to better themselves, to "grow up" to the standards of the greatest persons and deeds. It is a type of history in which excess causes the individual involved to become overzealous and unreasonable.

Leonidas Monument

Another type of history is antiquarian history. The antiquarian is the one who admires the traditions and customs of the past and wants to preserve and cultivate it. He looks back at the amazing lives of the past and feels part of that great history. He inherits the virtues of the past; he is tradition embodied. Nietzsche says the most valued type of the antiquarian way of doing history is the one who reveres the modest past and the simple life. An excess of antiquarian history causes an excess of novelty and an overemphasis on all historical information.

A treasury for the antiquarian: 17th century library in Lima

The third type of history is critical history, which is also "in the service of life. Man must have the strength to break up the past; and apply it too, in order to live. He must bring the past to the bar of judgment, interrogate it remorselessly, and finally condemn It." Critical gives man “a way to shatter and dissolve something to enable him to live”, which can also be destructive. Not in the sense of it being universally undesirable, more in the sense that it breaks down the wrong and the unnecessary. It paves the way for that which is truly important to be emphasized and valued. The problem of its excess is that it tears down too much. It also destroys that which is significant or helpful.

The Critic during his investigation

Otherwise Nietzsche approves neither of these historical methods:

Each of the three existing types of history is right only for a single area and a single climate; on every other one it grows up into a destructive weed. If a man who wants to create greatness uses the past, then he will empower himself through monumental history. On the other hand, the man who wishes to emphasize the customary and traditionally valued cultivates the past as an antiquarian historian. Only the man whose breast is oppressed by a present need and who wants to cast off his load at any price has a need for critical history, that is, history which sits in judgment and passes judgment. From the thoughtless transplanting of plants stem many ills: the critical man without need, the antiquarian without reverence, and the student of greatness without the ability for greatness are the sort who are receptive to weeds estranged from their natural mother earth and therefore to degenerate growths.

Are you closer to one method or another? Vote and share your ideas, thoughts, comments.

Articles:
Nietzsche “On the use and abuse of history for life”
On the Use and Abuse of History by Scott Horton

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I'm a hopeless monumentalist, with a little flavour of an antiquarian.

[Chaigidel]

antiquarian all the way , I love every little detail but I also like the mighty bits so a little bit of monumental

[Odovacar]

I prefer neither in this form. My choiche is Droysen.
1, history is the movement of moral powers which create culture, institution, spirituality and influence everyday life
2, We do not know whether mankind ages or rejuvenates
3, we are all "floating pieces in the big teophany" of history
4, history is the teacher of politics and has the same function as memory has in the identity of self

Also I believe in the strong use of source criticism, critical approach, archeology..First we must know who "es eigentlich gewesen" as Ranke says (but the existence of past is an understanding for us interpreted from our current situation)

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Actually, Ranke said the same as Droysen by claiming that "all historical eras are at the same distant from God" (or from the truth, speaking metaphorically).

eigentlich gewesen" as Ranke says

eigentlich gewesen ist

[Odovacar]

Actually, Ranke said the same as Droysen by claiming that "all historical eras are at the same distant from God" (or from the truth, speaking metaphorically).

That is something Droysen would perhaps accept. Perhaps.
He criticised Ranke among those who "think the closest to history is a manner of Walter Scott"

Droysen did believe great personalities forme their time but they are also product of their time.
Their greatness lies in making reality what is needed to advance. Ranke on the other hand believed these personalities "make history"

(sorry I quote it in german: In den Wirklichkeiten wirken andere Momente als die Persönlichkeiten, Historik 41§)

Droysen adopted the concept of Geist (in form of sittliche Mächte) which has less deterministic content.

Also "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" (how it was in reality) is true if we mean that we dont need speculations and tales.
But it is false if we believe, facts exist without interpretation as historical knowledge. Interpretation makes a fact to be historical knowledge.
Already we must choose what we consider to be important. That's interpretation.

"Metodik, Heuristik, Kritik, Interpretation" are the parts of Historical Method.

Droysen's Historik is more than a method concept framebook for history. It's a philosophy, almost a negative theology.
It's also some form of historical existentialism.

For Droysen the key of human spirit is hope (towards into the future) and memory (backwards into the past)
Without these forms of cheating the present existence, out from it's statics, human spirit would be a big zero, a constant emptiness.

History is nothing but a science of mankind's memory, thus containing traces of hope and all memory we can have.
But new and new resurfaces as we advance in our understanding.

I published my survey of Droysen, in Pro Philosophia 2006, 46.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

because closet Nazis are always fun!

Nietzsche is not someone I defend often, but he was not nazi. He hated antisemits for example. His theories were cloudy at best and he rejected social justice vehemently. But that hardly makes him someone more than a crazy liberal.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

That is something Droysen would perhaps accept. Perhaps.
He criticised Ranke among those who "think the closest to history is a manner of Walter Scott"

Droysen did believe great personalities form their time but they are also product of their time.
Their greatness lies in making reality what is needed to advance. Ranke on the other hand believed these personalities "make history"

Almost what Hegel said about the "deceit of the mind": great personalities think that they act, nonetheless history acts through them. The only question remaning is: "Who is History?". Because I can't imagine that the fate of humankind is written in a big book, unless I presume that there's an invincible, invisible force that drives human beings towards its own goal. (Of course, we can imagine it in a Kantian way, but that's rather theology than history.)
How can man be a "product" of his own "product", namely history? That's quite a contradiction for me. (I'm not talking about how man was created; or was he created or not; I'm just talking about history as a storyline of human actions as told through the eyes of the spectators - who are not actors themselves.)

Droysen adopted the concept of Geist (in form of sittliche Mächte) which has less deterministic content.

Also "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" (how it was in reality) is true if we mean that we dont need speculations and tales.
But it is false if we believe, facts exist without interpretation as historical knowledge. Interpretation makes a fact to be historical knowledge.
Already we must choose what we consider to be important. That's interpretation.

That's true, facts doesn't exist without interpretation. By choosing the facts one would like to examine, there is already a framework set up for interpretation. But one must be careful with over-interpretation or putting false constructions on historical facts. Here comes science into play: deciding what's important and what's not.

"Metodik, Heuristik, Kritik, Interpretation" are the parts of Historical Method.

Droysen's Historik is more than a method concept framebook for history. It's a philosophy, almost a negative theology.
It's also some form of historical existentialism.

For Droysen the key of human spirit is hope (towards into the future) and memory (backwards into the past)
Without these forms of cheating the present existence, out from it's statics, human spirit would be a big zero, a constant emptiness.

History is nothing but a science of mankind's memory, thus containing traces of hope and all memory we can have.
But new and new resurfaces as we advance in our understanding.

It's interesting that Droysen introduces Hope, a theological concept in his method for interpreting history, nonetheless it is defined as negative theology. It's exciting how history and theology, history and philosophy, philosophy and theology inspires and fertilizes each other.

About memory: it is a useful tool for a single individual or a smaller community for reconstructing past experiences, usually for present purposes. But can we say with an utmost certainty, that humankind is aware of his pact actions and achievements? Is there a hope for humankind? (I know this question sounds rather speculative, however I think we might discuss it here.)

I published my survey of Droysen, in Pro Philosophia 2006, 46.

I will read the next time, when I'm in a public library.

Nietzsche is not someone I defend often, but he was not nazi. He hated antisemits for example. His theories were cloudy at best and he rejected social justice vehemently. But that hardly makes him someone more than a crazy liberal.

How would Nietzsche be liberal? That's quite an interesting point of view, I'm interested in why do you think that.

[Odovacar]

Almost what Hegel said about the "deceit of the mind": great personalities think that they act, nonetheless history acts through them.

"History" is here necessity. Freedom and general values have consequences. You cant fight against Charles II and parlamentarism without really doing something for the generic values. Your action can have the goal of your personal welfare though.

Hegel interprets idealistically the "cheating of the spirit" (not the mind) as if an invisible hand would cheat people like Napleon, to do good things when they work for personal gains.
(The concept was created in Jena, first about the role work..work cheates the forces of nature..like windmill..etc.)

Whats realistic from this theory, is that the actors of history rarely know the consequences of their actions.

The only question remaning is: "Who is History?". Because I can't imagine that the fate of humankind is written in a big book, unless I presume that there's an invincible, invisible force that drives human beings towards its own goal. (Of course, we can imagine it in a Kantian way, but that's rather theology than history.)

Kant again and again tried to bring some necessity in history as the necessity of nature, ie humans are determined to be free, so history is the advance towards freedom, in correct kantian sense: the possibility of advance which sometimes becomes necessity.
(Kant wrote about the possible beginning of human history as a meeting of necessity and freedom, ie. use of hands etc.)

For Hegel spirit is essentially free. Its actions must lead to freedom. Or there can be no history too. Thats a "miserable existence" as he calls it.

How can man be a "product" of his own "product", namely history? That's quite a contradiction for me.

You dont make history. No one make. It happens. You may make wars and laws but they will turn out to be different, as they are dependent on the masses, the factors, the material and spiritual basement. Without generals and capable soldiers even Napoleon wouldnt win wars. "Napoleon" himself as we know him was created by his age and his own will.

It's interesting that Droysen introduces Hope, a theological concept in his method for interpreting history, nonetheless it is defined as negative theology. It's exciting how history and theology, history and philosophy, philosophy and theology inspires and fertilizes each other.

Droysen introduces elements of his lutheran religion.
"Hope" is not theological concept. Anyone thinks this or that will happen to him tomorrow and plans for it. That's hope.
Of course you have hopes for the future without any religion.
For example you hope you get a job, etc.

There is a "goal of goals" according to Droysen and that is God but you can't know God nor you can prove him.
But Droysen writes that because of uour inherent desire for completness and totality we must assume God's existence.
Or at least that desire itself is a fact which moves us.

Now that sounds dobious, right? I accept it though. No matter how hard I think I can't accept nothingness, evil, destruction as the final truth. Again and again I return of believing there must be life and goodness.
And cant accept that there may be day when evil rule the world, even though it seems perfectly possible.
This is nothing but a trace you can interpret anyhow.

I choose to interpret it as a quasi religious concept. A materialist may interpret it as "psychological necessity" which is based on a genetically coded the will to survive, or a nerve system.
I think the final philosophy as Fichte argues is a matter of choiche. But it's strenght of system and internal argument's aren't.

About memory: it is a useful tool for a single individual or a smaller community for reconstructing past experiences, usually for present purposes. But can we say with an utmost certainty, that humankind is aware of his pact actions and achievements? Is there a hope for humankind? (I know this question sounds rather speculative, however I think we might discuss it here.)

Humankind has no memory. "History" is nothing but recovering the memories of mankind..at least the broken traces of what remains from the past. Every child must learn the words, and every child asks about the time he did not live in.

Historians are children who asks about the time which even their grandfathers didnt see.
But history is something essential for humanity. In history it is decided what will become of humanity..a big pile of nuclear craphole, or a thriving civilization. Weltgeschichte is das Weltgericht -something Droysen would accept.

How would Nietzsche be liberal? That's quite an interesting point of view, I'm interested in why do you think that.

You possess definitely greater knowledge in this.
As far as I know, a classic liberal concept is that invisible hands govern human society. It doesnt need state to bring happines upon it. Most of the time society heals itself.

Nietzsche, upon the influence of greek thinkers- go as far as denying that society exist or important is.
Just individuals matter and they care of themselves.
Herein he is a liberal. For liberalism in the long run all that matters is the individual.

[bleach]

erm... I suppose I prefer all of the above.
I just think Nietzsche was absolutely brilliant.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

erm... I suppose I prefer all of the above.
I just think Nietzsche was absolutely brilliant.

because closet Nazis are always fun!

Critical, learning what others have done and the repercussions informs our actions and an attempt to do better.

[Carl von Döbeln]

antiquarian

[Steel of Fury]

All kinds.

[Łukomski]

I like Nietzsche's Philosophy but I don't prefer any of those... so I voted on 4th option.

[Ahlerich]

definatel critical - explanation might follow

[Xavier Dragnesi]

Mostly antiquarian for me, though a pinch of monumental, and perhaps a very light sprinkle of critical.