Historical Truth Analysis

The truth is a state of reality as best we know it that is believed to be accurate within given parameters. Belief comes from a search for truth which is finally abandoned as the searcher finally decides to decide what is the truth for him. Truths are in the world and beliefs are in our minds. Therefore, true is something that is, that always has been, and always will be. Humans always will struggle between these two concepts because we want to live happily in a wonderful world, so we would always create the beliefs that would satisfy us and make our lives easy by giving answers to our more difficult problems or questions, no matter what the truth is or can

What do you believe truth is? There probably are a few different definitions of truth. I consider truth being honesty and facts. “I don’t care about truth. I want some happiness.” said Fitzgerald’s version of truth. Hansberry says, “Perhaps I will be a great man… I mean perhaps I will hold on to the substance of the truth and find my way always with the right course.” O’Brien’s truth is, “I want you to know what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth.” These three have some decent definitions, but truth itself doesn't really have just one right definition, it's more open-ended.

The speaker asserts that as we investigate about history we cannot realize truth directly, consequently, we assemble different histories to show and demonstrate historical evidence as bona fide ones, and therefore, all historians are storytellers. This is an extreme approach, moreover, many historical events can be known directly by reliable evidence.

History may be examined and interpreted in many different ways. This is because there is little evidence that had survived to go by in which historians have to use to study the past. Evidence, written and made by the historical people themselves, include but are not limited to written documents, such as books and letters, and material culture, as in art and architecture. Now, because the original authors or artists are not alive to tell the story, historians have to examine the evidence left behind to make an educated judgment on what had really happened in the past. This judgment or argument is always incomplete and up for revision as more evidence is found as time passes by. Although many conclusions can be generated from one piece of evidence, arguments can be biased, leading to different, possibly incorrect, views of history. In his essay, “The Whig Interpretation of History,” Herbert Butterfield elaborates on the matter that many historians tend to write on the behalf on a Protestant or Whig point of view when researching about history. The argument he has provided in his essay states that the “whig interpretation of history” relates to the act of “abstracting [ideas and events] from their historical context and judging them apart from their context – estimating them and organizing the historical story by a system of direct reference to the present” (Butterfield 30). To Butterfield, studying the past in the eyes of the present is one of the biggest errors a historian

History is much more complex than the study and analysis of our past. History is what results from our use of concrete tools like chronology, geography, language - paired with their respective contexts - and the influence of others. It is constantly changing and evolving as historians, teachers, students, and civilians challenge what was previously accepted as fact. As time continues to pass we as a human race examine and dissect the events of the past that brought us here to the present, slowly chipping away at prejudice and bias that blocks us from truly understanding our what our history is.

In a world that filled with disputes and disagreements, it is somehow difficult to describe a conflicting event in a neutral tone based on one’s own judgment, typically for those historians who attempted to examine the events occurred in the past. As a matter of fact, people’s perspectives may be influenced by many conditions such as their cultural identities, genders, religions, emotions etc. Therefore, it is more likely that historians tend to hold biased view that may affect their tone in neutrality. However, to what extent can historians, or more generally the people, learn the history from an unbiased and neutral perspective? In general, as long as people equally analyze the view points from both sides and take the position between

In the opening chapters of both Doing History (2013), by Michael J. Galgano, J. Chris Arndt, and Raymond M. Hyser, and The Methods and Skills of History (2015), by Conal Furay and Michael J. Salevouris, the authors broadly discuss what history is, as well as the kinds and uses of historical knowledge. Doing History focuses closely on the definition of history and the variety of approaches to studying and using historical facts. Chapter One of The Methods and Skills of History emphasizes upon the importance of history in society, while Chapter Two is centered on the nature of history and the task of the historian.

Once been told by a great pastor, on this day, about two thousands years ago, the five most prominent elements in human life collided into one stirring pot of sin, the anti truth. Politic, law, religion, power, and culture are represented by the Roman Empire, Pontius Pilate, Religious leaders, society, and Herodes. The corruption of men’s heart makes possible to all of these five elements becomes sordid and be never befriended with truth. As it is all happens all over again, in our society.

What is truth? How do I know something is true and how do I know if its actually the truth or just somebodies opinion of what is true?

What is true of history? “God cannot alter the past, though historians can.” Samuel Butler. Samuel Butler was a 19th century author famous for his Erewhon and prose translations. This quote demonstrates what is true of history because it shows that history is only what we, as humankind, choose to remember and how we choose to interpret. Historians were the people that recorded down the information of the time, many years ago. Thus if historians had any particular bias that would be reflected in their writings; however, if there are no other sources, these writings are taken to be true and thus biased incorrect information is passed along through time. This applies more to ancient history, where few texts survived and only few were literate

Do we really know what the “truth” is? How can we distinguish what the truth is in real life? Are you every completely sure of the truth? In the Question of the Truth Unit we read a variety of selections based off of people’s perception of the truth, though in many of these selections the truth wasn’t what people expected. These selections help develop a contrast between how things seem on the surface, and how they really are. A couple of these selections accept the surface appearance of things as embodying reality and not the actual truth.

The first issue is what actually is truth? There are many things that we perceive to be true, depending on perspective or our beliefs, which differ from one person to the next, known as

The authors believe that the view that “history is what happened in the past” is a “profoundly misleading” view of history because new interpretations and new information can be presented which can alter our perspective on the course of history. I agree with the author’s view because history is being made everyday and history is constantly changing. According to the article it states, “But historians are said to succeed if they bring back the facts without distorting them or forcing a new perspective on them.” ( Davidson, pg1) This shows that viewing history as what happened in the past doesn’t have to be a misleading view of history if information and facts weren’t altered.

There is no single history, no matter what text you read, what you remember you will never have a comprehensive account of what happened. As a society of individuals we have our own thoughts, motivations and experiences which make different people. So the purpose of history is not about what happened, but what can be proven. (Arnold ¶1-3) History explains that in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president but it is not able to comprehend the reason every voter put Buchanan’s name on their ballot. It can gather reasons, supported by old newspapers, interviews or records of speeches, but to know the mind of every voter is

The historian would be able to go on for hours churning out historical facts. If you were to ask the same question of philosophers, they would have to admit that their studies have obtained positive along with negative results. The reason for this is that as soon as any knowledge about a subject gets definite, it turns into its own science, and is no longer called philosophy. (Bertrand Russell p21 Book).