Throughout the progression of this class I have formed an increasing interest in what history is.Moreover, this is what I have given the most of my attention to, simply because I have never thought of this process in any other terms beside the ones I had learned throughout my childhood schooling.Much of the historical dates, events and arguements have never been of particular interest to me.
Although, because of my recent awakenings to the historical process, I have become much more interested in the truthfulness of history and what the best way is for that truth to be attained.In the following paragraphs I would like to share with you my findings.All of these findings have come from, not only the modern opinion of history, but also historians of the past and the advancement of the process of an historian, as critiqued by modern analysts. Without the dedication of the historians of the past, and their pursuit of truth, historians would not have such a comprehensive understanding of history.In many ways, we can understand more about the accuracy of history by looking at the theories of our forefathers.In thefirst chapter of Great Issues in Western Civilization, there were many different theories on how to record history.
Some historians debated on understanding history by scientific relationships, and others sought to understand history by modern principles. For example, John Edward Emerich Acton thought that he could better understand the actions of men in the past based on his present principles.On the other hand, Herbert Butterfield says that, "Real historical understanding is not achieved by the subordination of the past to the present, but rather by our making the past our present and attempting to see life with the eyes of another century than our own."Or, Leo Strauss, who said, "If principles are sufficiently justified by the fact that they are accepted by a society, the principles of .