Philosophy of Society

Philosophy of History

Problems of Historiography

The transformation of "histories" into "history" is driven by a number of challenges that arise in the description of past or present events. The same event can be narrated in a multitude of ways, thus a high-quality account requires scholarly rigor. Even when someone witnesses an event firsthand and recounts what they saw, it does not necessarily mean they are presenting the truth. A critical approach to history is necessitated by several factors, without which scientific history cannot be achieved:

• An eyewitness views an event from their own perspective: a soldier involved in a war sees only the battles in which they participated, not the entire conflict. They are unable to observe what transpired on the other side of the battlefield, rendering their accounts partial.
• A chronicler must select for their chronicle only those events they deem significant, as it is impossible to describe everything. Whether what they considered significant truly is from the perspective of another time is not always certain.
• A historian, in presenting an account of the past, operates within a particular ideology that shapes their interests. For example, someone writing the history of their own people will highlight the positive traits of their compatriots and criticize their enemies. Conversely, a historian presenting another people’s history will describe the events differently. Historians working under Hitler’s regime, for instance, sought evidence in history to support party ideology, while Soviet historians aimed to corroborate Marxist theory of history.
• Historians often worked "on commission," writing what was demanded of them or what they were paid for. This is especially common in dictatorships.
• Like anyone, a historian has personal preferences: they may favor certain individuals or events and overlook negatives associated with them. They will focus on the deeds of those they admire and ignore their faults.

Thus, even firsthand accounts, chronicles, or monographs published by authoritative institutions must be approached with critical scrutiny. The principal rule for a historian is to write impartially and objectively, presenting "what happened." However, determining what truly occurred is not straightforward. Given these complexities, the methodology employed by history requires thorough study and critical analysis.