These binaries include history and literature, fact and fiction, and reality and imagination to mention just a few. According to them there shouldn’t be a distinction between these notions, rather they should be put together and presented as a whole to create a unified picture and a better understanding of, for example, history. Aside from these binaries, postmodernists have questioned two important notions that were set by the enlightenment thinkers and that are closely related to our understanding of the relationship between history on the one hand and fiction on the other as presented by Don DeLillo. These notions are ‘positivist history’ and ‘the universal subject’. Positivist history is the
Early Enlightenment thinker John Locke presented to the society documents which championed inalienable rights including life, liberty, and property. Liberty in specific becomes a most crucial topic in the debate deciding what conditions the state should prohibit speech offensive to some groups. Much later, John Stuart Mill built upon and constructed reformed ideas that contrasted the early enlightenment and would then be known as the Mature Enlightenment. In his works now classified as neoclassical utilitarianism- he was an avid follower of Jeremy Bentham, the father of Classical Utilitarianism- Mill also presents invaluable perspectives which can be used to discuss the debate While Locke’s philosophy would justify that speech can be banned
Henceforth, after assessing the second primary source, it appears that the US motivation was generally driven to strive for prosperity and peace in Europe. However, after assessing the first sources we did not get answer provided to the question why the US was backing the Schuman plan. In the next step, to find an answer to the question, the analysis will concentrate on earlier documents, right after the Schuman declaration was
While one would do well to agree with Bruce Fleming when he says that Achebe's crticism is holding Conrad to 'timeless standards' or at least standards that are synonymous with the contemporary society, and thus incompatible, yet the complete sidestepping of the issue, that such a stance seemingly permits seems problematic at the very least. The understanding and the implications of the term 'racism' may not be the same between the two periods, still it cannot be treated as a 20th or mid 20th century concept altogether. A certain awareness of the subject can be discerned even in the preceding centuries whether in the late 16th C with Shakespeare's Othello, or the early 18th C with Jonathan Swift's Gullivers Travels, being a few examples. The danger with the anachronism defense can be observed in Bruce Fleming's statement that Conrad was not somehow peculiarly stupid for not having seen this in the previous century. It is not about standing out as peculiar.
The use of the support and quotes that were given shows how the reader can compare and contrast the two theories, making arguments for both sides. One of the most significant things that the Warren wrote in this novel was when Jack said, “We can keep the past only by having the future, for they are forever tied together”(310). What Warren is trying to convey to the reader is that self-trust gives us confidence to live in the future; and with having this confidence that we should not live in the past. Warren wants us to recognize the past and not ignore it (like Jack initially did), but not be bound by
This was a time of social uncertainty as James 1 succeeded Queen Elizabeth I on the English throne. Due to this periodization overlap I will call this timeframe the Renaissance period. Unlike Othello, GM has been interpreted in different ways, readings ranging from sexual, biblical and fairy tale, to even a didactic allegory. Thus, historical context for both texts is vital to any scholarship reading them. Kirk agrees with my view that historical context is essential and argues
Historical thinking is the nature of human thoughts that normally doesn’t come naturally to us. We as everyday people, rather than historians, must grasp the knowledge of how to come to a greater understanding of what history is and how it genuinely affects our everyday lives. My understanding of history, is that it’s the knowledge and the circumstances of the past, present, and future that either has changed the historian’s perspectives of the world, or how those key experiences will guide the hands and minds of historians to establish a successful path for the future by avoiding the same miscalculations that people made in the past. There is some controversy among historians, who accredit that the only way to understand history is to “reduce it to its lowest terms” or with the “active participation of the historian.” While I believe these two concepts help us to understand history, however, I don’t believe that they are the only possibility for understanding the past. In other words,
This helps us understand strange ideas in terms more familiar to our modern thought processes. The phrases "Middle Ages" and "medieval" are theories themselves. Medieval people didn 't think of themselves as living in a middle age, they thought they were living in the now, just like we do. Most historians are confident that the use of the words "middle ages" and "medieval" is to describe the period of
Gandhi advocated for an India that is self-governed in accordance with Indian principles, values, and practices. Not one that simply operates within a British structure. Further, Gandhi allocates a small portion of his book to scrutinize modern civilizations and modern technologies. In this paper, through the examination of Gandhi 's theories proposed in his book "Hind Swaraj," I will contend that although Gandhi 's view of how civilization ought to be and Indian self-rule does hold some truth, there are various deficiencies in his reasoning and what implications his writing has on our modern society. Initially, it is imperative to define Gandhi 's conceptualization of what civilization is.
Introduction According to Karl Appuhn in the Encyclopedia of European Social History, Microhistory is a historical method that studies the interactions of individuals and events in isolation in order to construct meaning that would “otherwise remain unknown by means of more conventional historical strategies”. Microhistory is seen as a technique that attempts to reconstruct relations, both human and non-human, in order to make sense of larger geo-political themes within the historical narrative. This method is favoured for a variety of reasons, but one of the main motivations in using this perspective to investigate history is its emphasize on individual agency. By focusing on smaller-scale events, as well as evidence based on interactions,