Nietzsche has an interesting view of history; he saw it as a necessity for men, but that we also need to forget it. He saw history as a service to life and that the necessity of history is for man to be a historical being. However, Nietzsche also saw too much history as being detrimental and creates a generation of cynical people. He used the term “inwardness” defined as man’s “chaotic inner world” filled with “knowledge, taken in excess without hunger, even contrary to need” that “no longer acts as a transforming motive impelling to action and remains hidden” (Nietzsche 24). Nietzsche believed that history should be a balanced contemplation between historical and unhistorical to preserve life. He writes in his scholarship On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life that “the unhistorical and historical are equally necessary for the health of an individual, a people and a culture” (10). Within the historical, Nietzsche named the three types the monumental, antiquarian and the critical.
Nietzsche approaches history as monumental, which is examining the past to inspire greatness for present and future actions. Monumental history examines the past to use it as a teacher or model for future greatness. The monumental history is concerned with the greatest moments in history of humanity and uses it as leverage to emulate or surpass those historical moments. This kind of history attempts to emulate the greatness of the past, but Nietzsche is skeptical of this idea by asking can the past be replicated by monumentalizing? Can the greatness that once was become again in the same fashion? Nietzsche answered by saying not unless we distort the past in order to get the same effect. This type of history belongs to the powerful and ac...
... middle of paper ...
... Monarchy and the traditions of the past which he had a deep appreciation for.
Karl Marx is the historian that most closely relates to the model of critical history. His work the communist manifesto was an appeal to the proletariat class to take up arms in the class struggle. This struggle was between the working class (Proletariat) and the bourgeoisie (owners of production). Marx was critical of the capitalist system because he believed that once the wealth became concentrated in the hands of the few capitalist, chaos would ensue with the dissatisfied proletariat class breaking out into violence. Marx was critical of the capitalist system because he judged it by saying it contained the seed of destruction. Marx was appealing to the working class who was suffering at this point in class rise up against the wealthy class and the fight for economic freedom.
In The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the two German philosophers saw history as the struggle between the working class and the Bourgeois, or middle class (textbook 708). The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, during the peak of the Industrial Revolution, a time when the Bourgeois made huge profits in manufacturing at the expense of the working class. According to Marx and Engels, the fruits of the Industrial Revolution created a new class of the oppressed modern working class, the Proletariat, which had never before existed because it was neither like serfdom or slave hood in that it was dependent on the Bourgeois to hire them for wage labor. This was the class the two philosophers envisioned would set off a revolution that would overthrow capitalism to end the perpetual class struggle and create a fair society known as Communism.
The study of past events have been a common practice of mankind since the verbal telling of stories by our ancestors. William Cronon, in his article “Why the Past Matters,” asserts that the remembrance of the past “keeps us in place.” Our individual memories and experiences shape how we act in our daily lives. In addition to influencing us at an individual level, our collective history binds us together as a society. Without knowing where we have been or what we have experienced, it is nearly impossible to judge progress or know which courses of action to pursue. The goal of the historian is to analyze and explain past events, of which they rarely have firsthand memory of, and apply the gained knowledge to make connections with current and future events.
Marx sees history as a struggle between classes: “Oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Marx and Engles 14).
In the essay Haunted America, Patricia Nelson Limerick ponders whether or not there is any benefit for society to have historical knowledge. Limerick contradicts herself numerous times in her opinion on the usefulness of history. She implies that there are many lessons that can be learned from history. However, Limerick is disappointed in the human race because it fails to learn from the mistakes of others. She therefore wonders, "What do we gain besides a revival and restoration of the misery?" (Limerick, 473). Based on Limerick's examination of people and history, one can conclude that objectively history is useless, however, theoretically, people would be much better off if they learned from the lessons that the past presents.
...eferred to it as “the single greatest threat to intellectual freedom”. He argues that historicism rejects political philosophy and is entrenched in the belief that human thought including scientific thought, is based on the grounds that cannot be validated by reason and come from historical era. In his book, ‘Natural Right and History’ he offers a complete critique of historicism as it emerges in the works of Hegel and Marx. He believes that historicism grew out of Christianity and was a threat to civic participation, as well as understanding the classical philosophers and religions. In his books he warns that historicism, and the resulted perceived Progress can lead to totalitarianism and democratic extremism. In his book, ‘On Tyranny’ he blames historicism for Nazism and Communism. Many believe that the Strauss work is based on the Nietzsche's view of historicism.
One can see where many pieces of the Nietzschean philosophy of the late 1800's could have been the underpinnings of much of Nazi thought and propaganda. If indeed Hitler was fighting the battle for dominion of the earth, than his loss is a loss for the overmen everywhere. If, on the other hand, Hitler was an insane man, as Nietzsche became, than the victory over totalitarianism and tyranny is a sweeping victory for the freedom for mankind, and a defeat for the philosophies of Nietzsche. But of course, as Nietzsche said, there are no facts, only interpretations.
Marx views history as being determined by economics, which for him is the source of class differences. History is describe in The Communist Manifesto as a series of conflicts between oppressing classes and oppressed classes. According to this view of history, massive changes occur in a society when new technological capabilities allow a portion of the oppressed class to destroy the power of the oppressing class. Marx briefly traces the development of this through different periods, mentioning some of the various oppressed and oppressing classes, but points out that in earlier societies there were many differentiations of social classes. Marx sees the modern age as being distinguished from earlier periods by the simplifications of the class conflict, splitting up society into two great hostile groups: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
In The Landscape of History, John Lewis Gaddis makes a cohesive argument concerning about the debate over the objectivity of truth by stating “objectivity as a consequence is hardly possible, and that there is, therefore, no such thing as truth (Gaddis 29). The question for objective history has long been debated by numerous historians, and the differing viewpoints of history have led to a transition in our ways of thinking in the modern world. Ultimately, the question that this paper focuses on is: to what extent is history objective? Along with this, the relation to historical consciousness and the challenges of living in modernity will also be assessed. This paper will analyze the texts of John Lewis Gaddis, Nietzsche and the Birth of Tragedy, Modernity and Historical Vision, Living in Modernity, and Hermeneutics. Finally, the paper will argue that history is not largely objective, and is fundamentally shaped through the historian’s subjectivity.
...nd his morality. His practicality ties him to the throne. A part of him still depends on approval, on the “worldly symbols” he was never truly able to relinquish.
Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep understanding of the system to predict its pattern and protect ourselves from its negative sides.
Marx’s perspective was not based on the conflict of ideas, but rather on the conflict of classes. This conflict is the results of a new mode of production. According to Marx, history would consist of epochs of modes of production. He states that these modes of production are: primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, and then socialism and communism.
ABSTRACT: Historical research was one of Jean-Paul Sartre's major concerns. Sartre's biographical studies and thought indicate that history is not only a field in which you gather facts, events, and processes, but it is a worthy challenge which includes a grave personal responsibility: my responsibility to the dead lives that preceded me. Sartre's writings suggest that accepting this responsibility can be a source of wisdom. Few historians, however, view history as transcending the orderly presenting and elucidating of facts, events, and processes. I contend that Sartre's writings suggest a personally enhancing commitment. A lucid and honest response to the challenges and demands of history and the dead lives that preceded my own existence is an engagement that requires courage, wisdom, and thought. The consequences of this commitment for teaching history is discussed.
"I once asked myself, how history was written. I said, "I have to invent it." When I wish as now to tell of critical incidents, persons, and events that have influenced my life and work, the true answer is all of the incidents were critical, all of the people influenced me, everything that happened and that is still happening influences me."
He is known worldwide for his numerous theories and ideas in regards to society, economics and politics. His outlook on these subjects is known as Marxism. Marxism focuses on the imbalance and struggle between classes and society. Marx’s theories stem from the concept of materialism based society and the implications thereof. These concepts leads to the Marxist theory of the failure of capitalism. Marx had a number of specific reasons for the downfall of capitalism yet capitalism remains very real and successful. Marxism covers a wide range of topics and theories, but an in depth analysis of his criticism to capitalism and how it is not relevant to modern day will be explored.
He developed the socio-political theory of Marxism. One of his most famous works is The Communist Manifesto, which he co-wrote with Friedrich Engels. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx discusses his theories on society, economics and politics. He believed that “all societies progress through the dialectic of class struggle”. He criticized capitalism, and referred to it as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".