The past is intimately connected with time, a mysterious entity that we measure metaphorically in terms of space (a long or short time). Early on, people developed calendars to help them keep track of past, present, and future time. Calendars are based on the motions of the natural world (sun, moon, stars, earth) and on a beginning of time (birth of a hero, founding of a religion or a nation, creation of the world, ect.). They contain both cyclic (hours, days, weeks, months, years) and linear (sequential years) elements.YOU FOOL! Labeling time as mysterious then stating an empirical means of measuring it is a contradiction!
For human history involves historians and their human subjects in our common fate, that is, in what the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) called the “crooked timber of humanity.” Unlike scientists, historians resemble the objects of their all too human study of the past. We do not need to get bent out of shape by the fact that we are all crooked timber. We understand others in the past because they too, like us, were human beings. We can empathize with their triumphs and tragedies. We can imagine what we might have done in their situation.
YOU QUADRUPLE FOOL! You do not understand a person in the past because you cannot experience the socio-cultural aspects of the past! Sources are relied upon for context and content!
Emphasize do not sympathize. Even primary sources only provide a subjective account of history. As a historian or psychologist one MUST remain objective otherwise bias sets in. This is much easier said than done.QuoteYOU QUADRUPLE FOOL! You do not understand a person in the past because you cannot experience the socio-cultural aspects of the past! Sources are relied upon for context and content!
Well, no. But through the study of history you can gain greater understanding of what drove people in the past, a lot of what would motivate them may not motivate people in the modern world, but you may see similarities between how people then reacted to an event and how people in the modern world react to a similar situation.
I'd also point out that Williams' isn't claiming that the study of history gives one the monopoly on empathy, although there will be empathy amongst those studying, for example if you study an event like, for example, the sinking of the RMS Titanic, then you certainly feel a lot of sympathy for those involved. That doesn't mean you have a monopoly on empathy, but (from my own point of view) you'd need a heart of stone not to feel moved by the stories.Empathy and sympathy are not interchangeable.
One other thing - you say that this book is required reading at many colleges and universities. Which ones? I've studied history at the Aberdeen University, Stirling University and am now doing a history course with the Open University, so far this book hasn't come up. What does come up, time and time again, is the need to be analytical of sources and the need to check the veracity of sources, but I've yet to see this book anywhere in my (exhaustive) reading lists.This book is for 600 level classes in: James Madison Universities, Concordia Colleges, Villanova Universities, Davidson Colleges, University of Texas, California State University, University of Michigan, University of Oregon and others.
Emphasize do not sympathize. Even primary sources only provide a subjective account of history. As a historian or psychologist one MUST remain objective otherwise bias sets in. This is much easier said than done.QuoteYOU QUADRUPLE FOOL! You do not understand a person in the past because you cannot experience the socio-cultural aspects of the past! Sources are relied upon for context and content!
Well, no. But through the study of history you can gain greater understanding of what drove people in the past, a lot of what would motivate them may not motivate people in the modern world, but you may see similarities between how people then reacted to an event and how people in the modern world react to a similar situation.I'd also point out that Williams' isn't claiming that the study of history gives one the monopoly on empathy, although there will be empathy amongst those studying, for example if you study an event like, for example, the sinking of the RMS Titanic, then you certainly feel a lot of sympathy for those involved. That doesn't mean you have a monopoly on empathy, but (from my own point of view) you'd need a heart of stone not to feel moved by the stories.Empathy and sympathy are not interchangeable.One other thing - you say that this book is required reading at many colleges and universities. Which ones? I've studied history at the Aberdeen University, Stirling University and am now doing a history course with the Open University, so far this book hasn't come up. What does come up, time and time again, is the need to be analytical of sources and the need to check the veracity of sources, but I've yet to see this book anywhere in my (exhaustive) reading lists.This book is for 600 level classes in: James Madison Universities, Concordia Colleges, Villanova Universities, Davidson Colleges, University of Texas, California State University, University of Michigan, University of Oregon and others.
This book is for 600 level classes in: James Madison Universities, Concordia Colleges, Villanova Universities, Davidson Colleges, University of Texas, California State University, University of Michigan, University of Oregon and others.
Actually, no. Empathy and sympathy may be different, but there's nothing wrong with empathising with someone going through a bad situation, be it a deckhand on the Titanic, the last stand of the Canmores or someone on the news. That doesn't make you bad at history, indeed you can imagine how you would feel in a similar situation, as you can empathise for those who survived the Titanic or the men who fought against Malcolm Canmore. It is easy to have sympathy for both and this can lead to greater understanding of what motivated them.Empathy is good for History and Psychology, sympathy is not. You are inherently NOT the person or part of the event (except for modern history) you are researching. The moment you self-insert is the moment you are writing fan-fiction instead of research.
Good for them. I haven't encountered it here. As anyone studying history knows, you have to be critical. That means being critical of that book, whether you accept it or not.I am glad that this obvious, it needs to be obvious for everyone else in the field.
Actually, no. Empathy and sympathy may be different, but there's nothing wrong with empathising with someone going through a bad situation, be it a deckhand on the Titanic, the last stand of the Canmores or someone on the news. That doesn't make you bad at history, indeed you can imagine how you would feel in a similar situation, as you can empathise for those who survived the Titanic or the men who fought against Malcolm Canmore. It is easy to have sympathy for both and this can lead to greater understanding of what motivated them.Empathy is good for History and Psychology, sympathy is not. You are inherently NOT the person or part of the event (except for modern history) you are researching. The moment you self-insert is the moment you are writing fan-fiction instead of research.
This sort of blather actually gives historians a bad rap. By saying that "unlike scientists (insert touchy feely shite here)" they are saying "unlike science-history is touchy, feely completely irrelevant shite"!
Of course it's relevant, if it's portrayed as somehow weaker and less relevant than the sciences then that to me does the entire academic discipline a disservice!
Actually, no. Empathy and sympathy may be different, but there's nothing wrong with empathising with someone going through a bad situation, be it a deckhand on the Titanic, the last stand of the Canmores or someone on the news. That doesn't make you bad at history, indeed you can imagine how you would feel in a similar situation, as you can empathise for those who survived the Titanic or the men who fought against Malcolm Canmore. It is easy to have sympathy for both and this can lead to greater understanding of what motivated them.Empathy is good for History and Psychology, sympathy is not. You are inherently NOT the person or part of the event (except for modern history) you are researching. The moment you self-insert is the moment you are writing fan-fiction instead of research.
Actually, no. Empathy and sympathy may be different, but there's nothing wrong with empathising with someone going through a bad situation, be it a deckhand on the Titanic, the last stand of the Canmores or someone on the news. That doesn't make you bad at history, indeed you can imagine how you would feel in a similar situation, as you can empathise for those who survived the Titanic or the men who fought against Malcolm Canmore. It is easy to have sympathy for both and this can lead to greater understanding of what motivated them.Empathy is good for History and Psychology, sympathy is not. You are inherently NOT the person or part of the event (except for modern history) you are researching. The moment you self-insert is the moment you are writing fan-fiction instead of research.
That looks like some utter crap there. Why can't a person sympathize with someone in a historical situation yet leave it out of professional works? Almost compartmentalize?
Wait, what? So feeling sympathy for another person automatically means that you can no longer be objective? Bullshit. You can still remain objective even if you have an emotional attachment (feelings of sympathy or hatred for example) and it is called being a professional.
If you study the great atrocities and disasters of the past (like the holocaust or holodomor) most human beings will be affected by the stories, but this does not mean that they cannot remain neutral (rather than writing "fanfiction.")
Absolutely, I can sympathise with the poor sods in the trenches of World War One (regardless of which side they're on), equally I can feel admiration for men such as Kamal Ataturk rallying his men when the allies were coming up the beaches at Gallipoli, or the Australian troops insisting on being the Honour Guard for the Red Baron at his funeral. But that doesn't mean that I can't also see it objectively.
That looks like some utter crap there. Why can't a person sympathize with someone in a historical situation yet leave it out of professional works? Almost compartmentalize?
Wait, what? So feeling sympathy for another person automatically means that you can no longer be objective? Bullshit. You can still remain objective even if you have an emotional attachment (feelings of sympathy or hatred for example) and it is called being a professional.
If you study the great atrocities and disasters of the past (like the holocaust or holodomor) most human beings will be affected by the stories, but this does not mean that they cannot remain neutral (rather than writing "fanfiction.")Absolutely, I can sympathise with the poor sods in the trenches of World War One (regardless of which side they're on), equally I can feel admiration for men such as Kamal Ataturk rallying his men when the allies were coming up the beaches at Gallipoli, or the Australian troops insisting on being the Honour Guard for the Red Baron at his funeral. But that doesn't mean that I can't also see it objectively.That looks like some utter crap there. Why can't a person sympathize with someone in a historical situation yet leave it out of professional works? Almost compartmentalize?
Please stop confounding empathy with sympathy, they are not the same! Sympathy implies agreement and susceptibility while empathy does not. Transference, counter-Transference, ect exemplifies the difference and dangers of sympathy. You can not be professional if you are not objective, especially in the field of psychology.
Please stop confounding empathy with sympathy, they are not the same! Sympathy implies agreement and susceptibility while empathy does not. Transference, counter-Transference, ect exemplifies the difference and dangers of sympathy. You can not be professional if you are not objective, especially in the field of psychology.
Please stop confounding empathy with sympathy, they are not the same! Sympathy implies agreement and susceptibility while empathy does not. Transference, counter-Transference, ect exemplifies the difference and dangers of sympathy. You can not be professional if you are not objective, especially in the field of psychology.
I have already pointed out that I am objective. That does not mean that I cannot feel sympathy for the poor sod on the ground or empathy for the situation as a whole. Just because that doesn't work for you, don't be so fucking arrogant as to assume everyone else has to be the same.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
And two other things: I couldn't give a flying fuck about the field of psychology, you started this by talking about History. I'm not studying, nor do I want to study, psychology, so I really couldn't care less about it. And as you seem to want to be so pedantic with everyone on this board, I feel I should point out that you spell the shortened version of 'etcetera' as 'etc', not 'ect'. Got that?I am going to explain this:
snip
other sites say that the very act of feeling what another person does is empathy and sympathy is merely recognising what the other person is feeling.Which one is subjective and which one is objective: the very act of feeling what another person is feeling or recognizing what the other person is feeling. Here is a hint, is recognition objective or subjective?
You must be objective when making professional judgements in the field of history.Someone give Jack Mann a medal, an internet and a cookie!
It is possible to be subjective when not making those professional judgements, and then put that aside when "on the clock." Which is good, because it's impossible for humans to be entirely objective about damned near anything. People are going to have sympathy, they're going to mentally pick sides. They're going to develop fondness or dislike for various figures of history. But they can put that aside when it's time to look at the evidence and analyze events.
IM, if you're objecting to the idea that the subjective reactions are part of the process of describing history, then I agree with you. Historians need to put that aside and look at it as objectively as possible. If you're saying that they cannot in any circumstances be subjective without ceasing to function as historians, then you've basically said that history is impossible for humans to study.
I am putting this outside the spoiler because it is short and effective.other sites say that the very act of feeling what another person does is empathy and sympathy is merely recognising what the other person is feeling.Which one is subjective and which one is objective: the very act of feeling what another person is feeling or recognizing what the other person is feeling. Here is a hint, is recognition objective or subjective?
rec·og·nize
1
: to acknowledge formally: as
a : to admit as being lord or sovereign
b : to admit as being of a particular status
c : to admit as being one entitled to be heard : give the floor to
d : to acknowledge the de facto existence or the independence of
: to acknowledge or take notice of in some definite way: as
a : to acknowledge with a show of appreciation <recognize an act of bravery with the award of a medal>
b : to acknowledge acquaintance with <recognize a neighbor with a nod>
3
a : to perceive to be something or someone previously known <recognized the word>
b : to perceive clearly : realize
...Um english is my second (well technically third) language so maybe I picked the wrong word or maybe I have the wrong definition of recognise.
Merrian webster redirects it to recognize, so:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recognizeQuoterec·og·nize
1
: to acknowledge formally: as
a : to admit as being lord or sovereign
b : to admit as being of a particular status
c : to admit as being one entitled to be heard : give the floor to
d : to acknowledge the de facto existence or the independence of
: to acknowledge or take notice of in some definite way: as
a : to acknowledge with a show of appreciation <recognize an act of bravery with the award of a medal>
b : to acknowledge acquaintance with <recognize a neighbor with a nod>
3
a : to perceive to be something or someone previously known <recognized the word>
b : to perceive clearly : realize
Well I thought that recognice simply meant that you notice something and realise what it is. Still I don't see how recognice would imply subjectivity according to Merrian-Webster.
Besides if you really did read my post you would have noticed that in that sentence I was explaining how even dictionaries have conflicting definitions for empathy and sympathy.