论文部分内容阅读
实际上使得历史家意见分歧的主要原因可以归纳为四类。第一类是个人的好恶;第二类是偏见;第三类是互相矛盾的历史解释理论;第四类是根本不同的道德信念、人性观或世界观。当我们观察历史时,我们要从历史中取得什么样的理解,首先取决于我们能否如他们一样思索和感觉。但是,除非我们假定一些有关人性的前提,并运用一些人类行为哪些是合理或正常的概念,我们就不可能获得初步的了解。我们的观点就在这里对我们提出的解释起着影响,并给它涂上颜色。但是由此就得出结论,说历史家只要努力做到不抱任何成见来看过去,这肯定是过分自信了。由于我们都是通过我们自己的道德和形而上学的眼镜来观察过去,因此在目前阶段就得出客观了解历史不可能的推论,这自然是错误的。然而无疑地,极端历史怀疑主义初看上去是可以言之成理的,而从历史家中间的实际分歧情况看来,那些理由就更加有力了。因此,完全无视这些理由等于把头埋在沙土里。
The main reason that led to the disagreement between the historians can be summarized into four categories. The first category is personal likes and dislikes; the second category is prejudice; the third category is contradictory theories of historical interpretation; the fourth category is fundamentally different moral beliefs, human nature or world view. When we look at history, what we want to gain from history depends first and foremost on whether we can think and feel like them. But unless we assume some premises about human nature and apply some of the concepts of human behavior that are reasonable or normal, we can not get a first-hand understanding. Our point of view here has an effect on our interpretation and gives it a color. However, it follows from this that it is certainly overconfident that historians should try their best to live without any prejudice. Since we are all observing the past through our own moral and metaphysical spectacles, it is naturally wrong to draw an objective corollary of history that is not possible at this stage. Undoubtedly, however, extreme historical skepticism seems plausible at first glance, and those grounds are even more powerful in light of the actual disagreements among historians. Therefore, completely ignoring these reasons is equal to buried his head in the sand.