Hello everyone, welcome to Historical Geography: 416
The point of this discussion is to cultivate a mutual understanding of a psycogeographical historical perspective, which we will explain and establish consensus. I would like to start by surveying what you all thought i.e. Methods and foundation
Q. How would you define historical geography?
A. The history of geography.
In the sense of the the actual history of the discipline, or how geographical thoughts developed.
Rocks? Geography of how the earth formed? There has been an emphasis on natural geography as separate from cultural geography, and they use different methods. Cultural geography collects data about people in a landscape (read Social Science) a common thread in-between all of these academic disciplines. Part of that is a method, a way of being critical about the evidence you collect.
Engles!
Fredrick Engles: The Science of History
The essence of history consists in the fact that "nothing happens without a conscious purpose or an intended aim," to understand history it is necessary to go beyond this... -- Lukacs
Q. How can history be scientific?
A1. Methodology?
A2. History repeats itself... every time photosynthesis stops working the leaves of desigious trees change colours... so that becomes a truth in terms of this reading..
Science attempts to establish facts between different parties. In history you have a slightly different problem because the way you access information is not by experimentation. And it is subjective dependant upon who is documenting. I always think that there are lots things in history that were never documented... So these things that we don't know it happened... How do we establish some sort of factual basis that we can discuss commonly? The facts you can get for history are limited, personal accounts (i.e. letters), political documents, geography, importantly the history of buildings, i.e. what ruins remain, etc. A settlement was clearly here because of these stone foundations, etc.
Architecture is communication between generations because often, contemporary building is a bit different, a building is created and then the next generations continue to inhabit that building.
Part of histories task is to make accounts of these events to keep records. But also history attempts to analyze and interpret these events. We've understood these trends, we've documented them, we have this period of time with the beginning and the end, and that we can look at and start filling in those spaces. This is what Engles is trying to get at with this quotation.. Nothing happens without a conscious purpose, or an intended aim.
I don't agree with that... We should debate it.
I think a lot of things happen without a conscious aim...
So... the many individuals wills active in history quite regularly produce effects quite others then those intended. Often quite the opposite. Their motives in relation to the total result are likewise only of secondary importance...
There is consciousness action but there is also something else at work other than rational, intention, or consciousness
This is probably part of a broader conversation... I don't think rational and consciousness are the same thing... you can plan but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is thought out that it is conscious.
All of this is relating back to us back as movers...
I know that you're not Engles...
That would be the account side... trying to account for conscious action... is making historical records...
What driving forces stand behind these motives... History should pay special attention that set in motion great masses whole peoples and whole classes of people that initiate action for lasting transformation
Very convoluted for me...
Particular interest, in great masses, consciousness coming together to change things on an inter-subjective level.
What does inter-subjective mean? The relationships between subjects? Empathy, is an inter-subjective thing. My subject is being broached by your subject, then vise versa to understand something (read synthesis)
The contradiction... arises from inter-subjectivity... individual conscious actors, all acting in the same time and different spaces... in one sense the same space... existence... cooperate with each other for history to progress... a truism... the main contradiction... the individual vs the group? (reluctant) yes. But the real point I am trying to make is that there are multiple contradictions... Dualities in life... There is a movement to contradiction... a contradiction involves a synthesis... any kind of contradiction that is resolved is a synthesis... There are a million people. we are all doing are own thing. sometimes they mesh up with others and sometime they don't. In contradiction to the way this
There are other ways in academy...As you are looking up Positivism... I'm going to get more hot water...
SR
No comments:
Post a Comment