THE SAME WORLD FOR ALL OF US

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY History and Theory Pub Date : 2022-04-02 DOI:10.1111/hith.12255
Bennett Gilbert
{"title":"THE SAME WORLD FOR ALL OF US","authors":"Bennett Gilbert","doi":"10.1111/hith.12255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>While much of Donald Bloxham's <i>History and Morality</i> is devoted to analyzing the evaluative processes of historians, Bloxham develops and relies on two strong philosophical concepts. The first is his claim that context must be understood as causality because a historical context is one of the causes of actions. Bloxham uses this to argue that historians must ascribe responsibility to past actors rather than blame their cultures. A wide critique of moral relativism emerges from this principle. The second is a distinction between a type of account that explains past events or entities in terms of their internal, unified natures and a type that understands them in terms of their relations to the rest of their world. Here, Bloxham's great concern is the isolation of forces from one another that helps to put them into conflict. The twentieth-century nation-state is the most important example of this. The “internalist” approach was part of what led to the Holocaust, to which Bloxham has dedicated most of his scholarly life. These two concepts anchor and justify historians in morally evaluating the decisions and deeds they study. But these ideas also point to deeper and more fully philosophical conceptions supporting moral evaluation that historians should practice in an exemplary way and that link historical consciousness to the chief issues of moral philosophy.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47473,"journal":{"name":"History and Theory","volume":"61 2","pages":"352-368"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12255","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While much of Donald Bloxham's History and Morality is devoted to analyzing the evaluative processes of historians, Bloxham develops and relies on two strong philosophical concepts. The first is his claim that context must be understood as causality because a historical context is one of the causes of actions. Bloxham uses this to argue that historians must ascribe responsibility to past actors rather than blame their cultures. A wide critique of moral relativism emerges from this principle. The second is a distinction between a type of account that explains past events or entities in terms of their internal, unified natures and a type that understands them in terms of their relations to the rest of their world. Here, Bloxham's great concern is the isolation of forces from one another that helps to put them into conflict. The twentieth-century nation-state is the most important example of this. The “internalist” approach was part of what led to the Holocaust, to which Bloxham has dedicated most of his scholarly life. These two concepts anchor and justify historians in morally evaluating the decisions and deeds they study. But these ideas also point to deeper and more fully philosophical conceptions supporting moral evaluation that historians should practice in an exemplary way and that link historical consciousness to the chief issues of moral philosophy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们所有人都拥有同一个世界
虽然唐纳德·布洛克斯汉姆的《历史与道德》的大部分内容都致力于分析历史学家的评价过程,但布洛克斯汉姆发展并依赖于两个强有力的哲学概念。第一个是他的主张,背景必须被理解为因果关系,因为历史背景是行为的原因之一。布洛克斯汉姆以此为依据,认为历史学家必须将责任归咎于过去的行为者,而不是归咎于他们的文化。对道德相对主义的广泛批判源于这一原则。第二是区分两种类型的描述,一种是根据过去事件或实体的内部统一性质来解释它们,另一种是根据它们与世界其他部分的关系来理解它们。在这里,布洛克斯汉姆最关心的是力量之间的隔离,这有助于使它们陷入冲突。20世纪的民族国家就是最重要的例子。“内部主义”方法是导致大屠杀的部分原因,布洛克斯汉姆将其大部分学术生涯都奉献给了大屠杀。这两个概念为历史学家从道德上评价他们所研究的决策和行为提供了依据和理由。但这些观点也指出了更深更全面的哲学概念,支持道德评价历史学家应该以一种模范的方式来实践,并将历史意识与道德哲学的主要问题联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
History and Theory
History and Theory Multiple-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: History and Theory leads the way in exploring the nature of history. Prominent international thinkers contribute their reflections in the following areas: critical philosophy of history, speculative philosophy of history, historiography, history of historiography, historical methodology, critical theory, and time and culture. Related disciplines are also covered within the journal, including interactions between history and the natural and social sciences, the humanities, and psychology.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information HOW SHOULD HISTORIANS EMPATHIZE? “TESTIMONY STOPS WHERE HISTORY BEGINS”: UNDERSTANDING AND ETHICS IN RELATION TO HISTORICAL AND PRACTICAL PASTS A HOUSE WITH EXPOSED BEAMS: INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING AND HISTORIANS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS SCHOLAR-TEACHERS OPEN LETTERS IN CLOSED SOCIETIES: THE VALUES OF HISTORIANS UNDER ATTACK
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1