When studying history anyone can tell you that there comes a time when you have to question the authenticity of the writer of a book, the speaker or even the witness account. So much information that we analyze as seekers of knowledge is subject to the vagaries of human emotion, motivation of the source of information or timing of when the information is relayed. So one has to ask what truth is.
My take on such a debate is that everything is to be taken with a grain if not a pinch of salt, maybe even the whole jar; after all historical facts have been twisted time and time again to suit the purposes of who is relaying the truth. But even as i say this, i am also of the opinion that for as long as the lack of objectivity on the part of the source does not totally change the nature or sequence of how events took place, then it is permissible in as much as it gives a variety of opinions and perceptions. This enables the student of history to question opinions, seek different versions of truth, and judge on what is truly acceptable. The sources of history can never be truly objective and unbiased because of the human element so this very weakness of the source is its strength in providing a basis for comparison with other sources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment