I'm starting my Masters in History next week and my first class is Historiography. I can't wait! Glad to see some academic content on RU-vid in my field!
I dont know if this is some latinoamerican stuff (we dont like deffinitions) but you litterally explained historiography better than 3 of my college professors because all of them have a different favorite interpretation of what is historiography does. So thanks, now I know stuff.
I had to fight a losing battle against the background music/noise/sound, or whatever that annoying 'thing' was. Please! Your content is too valuable to be enveloped by anything other than itself.
You just don't. General knowledge in history is separate from narrative and is limited to the materiality of historical register. ie. "someone wrote something, we have the paper to prove it was written, calligraphy, paper, ink and origin corroborate the authenticity of the register", and nothing else. Historiography is not only an analysis methodology but separates and excludes history (and humanities including "social sciences") from actual sciences. Historiography as much as it is methodology is an actual problem derived from axiological non-cognition. It creates as many problems than it solves, the schools are a reflection of this problem and consequent biases. Unfortunately "general historiography" in the west means Marxist Historiography.
"History" is an English word??? Seriously??? It is literally the 3rd word in the introduction of Herodotus work. You know Herodotus? The "father" of History as the Romans called him???
Does historiography itself have some historiography associated with it? There are different schools of thought in history right- what if someone writes history without subscribing to any thought, but puts forth the views of different schools of thought with the "intention of writing a history" and not putting forth his views... Wud that be called historiography???
I enjoy your inquiry/answer very much. However authority is an institutional problem, not a scientific one. All Historiography is biased, that's why History as science is limited to register materiality. Historiography is part of History as Philosophy, inquiry in the broadest sense. Science is not only a method but a limitation of philosophy. Axiological non-cognition inherent to Historiography excludes it from modern science.
much useful information here.... but I cant write any notes because it is way too fast. This would be an excellent video if it went just a bit slower. Thank you
Just a note: also History is not original English, but from Latin. As all the words that 2000 years ago could not be part of the culture of a people of shepherds (i.e. science, astronomy, etc etc) like the Brits.
