“History is an argument without end”
History is not the facts of the past alone but the processing of these facts into a coherent, meaningful interpretation of the past with which these facts are concerned. Historians explore the past from archives, public record offices, churches and historical documents (primary sources) and from information provided by other historians (secondary sources). But how do we know whether a particular history is telling us the truth?
“The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history”
According to Nikita Khrushchev,
“Historians are dangerous people, capable of upsetting everything”
It is often argued that history is constructed by prejudiced historians working with biased sources which were written by biased people. To some extent it can be said that history depends on the written records. But are all these documents bona fide and true? Are these facts empirically accurate? Can history be made through these so called facts? No, the most important part of a historian’s skill is his imaginative understanding. But memory is fallible, evidence ambiguous, and prejudice common. Do the historians, being human beings, not suffer from prejudices, biases and expectations? Doesn’t the beauty lie in the eyes of the beholder? Doesn’t all look yellow to the jaundiced eye?
We read history so that the mistakes of the past may not be repeated in the future. But how can we learn when some of the history is fabricated and highly opinionated? For example when we compare the accounts written by Roman Catholic and Protestant historians about the 16th century, we find that they eulogize the heroism of their own martyrs irrespective of what was being dared and endured by the other side. Reports from eyewitnesses play an important role in the development and propagation of beliefs but history is not an eyewitness account. Evidence can often be manufactured and ambiguous, and prejudices are common. For example, it is claimed by many historians that Alexander the great died of poisoning, while others argue that he died of a mysterious illness. Moreover, history is a written record of the past. It is illustrated through a language, which may itself be subject to prejudice, bias and discrimination. Language and opinions of the historians are not immune from cultural bias. The history of the Norman Conquest written by William of Malmesbury is far different from that of Anglo-Saxon chronicles.
According to a school of philosophy, called rationalism, reason is the most significant resource to increase knowledge. Rationalism is the doctrine or theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation for certainty in knowledge. It is a tool that seems to give us certainty. It helps us discover important truths. Rationalists are suspicious of knowledge based on perception on the grounds that our senses can all too easily mislead us. But can reason lead to truth?
The father of modern philosophy, Descartes, known for his method of ‘Cartesian Doubt’ says:
“Treat all your beliefs as if they were false”.
He believed that only reason can give us certainty. Reason is a type of thought. The most celebrated argument is found in Descartes’ First Meditation on doubt and certainty. He postulated that there is no way of knowing whether a thing is correct or not. He establishes that there is only one certainty-the certainty that he exists. He exists because he thinks. His thinking alone is evidence for his existence. His thoughts are independent of external things, independent of any sense experience. Descartes' famous
“Cogito ergo sum”,
this can be translated into ‘I think, therefore I am’.
“But God left free the Will, for what obeyes
Reason, is free, and Reason he made right
But bid her well beware, and still erect,
Least by some faire appeering good surpris'd
She dictate false, and misinform the Will”.
Milton in paradise lost Book IX.
Milton in his greatest epic says that reason is a gift of god. But it is not impregnable to fallacy or bias. It can be led astray easily. According to Oscar Wilde;
“Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason”.
Validity is very different from truth. Arguments can be fallacious. Reasoning is subject to variations and prejudice is what fools use for reason. It may vary from person to person. Our thinking our reasoning may be opposite to the others’. Reasoning is confined to a person’s cognition, maturity, and experiences.
According to David Hume, our ideas through which our reason transacts are just copies of our impressions. These impressions give rise to our feelings or passions regarding a particular thing. These impressions are then articulated through language, and language is used to communicate thoughts. Thus reason is
“A slave of passions”
Since the historian has to use his language and reason while writing history, the history may be far from truth.
History is replete with biases and prejudices. It is mute on the exploits of women when it comes to achievements. According to Owen Shahadah:
"Historically Africans are indifferent to any form of civilization, a people absent from scientific discovery, philosophy or the higher arts”.
Africa is not considered as a historical part of the world, and Negroes are generally considered as inferior to whites. Even Darwin has been arraigned on racist notions of white superiority. . Thus reason and language, if unbridled, can certainly mar history changing the facts into fiction. Recently my country has been under the onslaught of Islamic Terrorist activities. Last year in one of the most gruesome terrorist attack Ajmal Amir Kasab spearheaded rampage on many important places in Mumbai. If a historian, with a biased reason, and with inherent propensity to terrorism, comes to write the history of the ghastly attack, he will justify the assaults. Not only this he can narrate the incident in such a bombastic language that the loathsome culprit may appear as a hero. The other terrorists will come before us not as criminals but as martyrs. In my opinion a historian should keep his reason and language unbiased lest the historical account should deceive the common humanity.
My conclusion is not that language and reason have no role in history. To the contrary they are the pillars to the foundation of history. History is an intellectual pursuit, an activity of the reasoning mind. What is true of an individual is also true of history. There is some kind of truth about the past and that a good historian can at least help us to get closer to the truth. Like other ways of knowing, Language and Reason is a double edged tool that helps us develop consistent beliefs about the world. But language and reason should be free from the venom of faith, bias, discrimination and prejudice, or
“Happy is the nation that has no history”.
by
sc_rahulgrah (student)
