Do You Agree with the Statement That History Is āan Act of Imaginationā?Do you agree with the statement that history is āan act of imaginationā?History can be an act of imagination as by the way that history can come to fruition. Imagination could be considered a driving force of history by the way that this imagination can create historical knowledge to become fact. As the historian G.M Trevelyan once argued āthe poetry of history does not consist of imagination roaming at large, but of imagination pursuing the fact and fastening upon it.ā People upon Earth are constantly looking for the answers of things, using imagination to help guide them. With history: archaeologists, historians, and the like aim to piece together the past from evidence they receive for example remains of an ancient body and thereafter piecing together how the person died. This may take large amounts of imagination to envisage the cause of death, where the death occurred etc. to allow these facts to be uncovered.
On the flip side, above all history is based on facts on real events and cannot be considered the work of the imagination. Events cannot be invented if they didnāt happen, as this wouldnāt be history, but a myth. āWe historians are firmly bound by the authority of our sources (and by no other authority, human or divine), nor must we use fiction to fill in the gaps…ā said by Sir Geoffrey Elton who is clearly highlighting that history is pure factual knowledge and not a place for creative thinking as this would undermine the facts due to added unsupported claims.Overall, I would say that history is not an act of the imagination as it has facts, sources and supported claims in general for historical events however, history can be an act of the imagination where facts arenāt possible so thus the imagination must try and figure out possible areas of past events so is a smaller part of history. Though most of historical data in our world is well supported and thus not an act of the imagination.
ā,
ā§ “Grammarian and the Other Science”: Perennial Academic Press, 2002, p. 25, p. 22
āØ “Grammarian and the Other Science”, Perennial Academic Press, 2002, p. 26
ā “Grammarian and the Other Science”: Perennial Academic Press, 2002, p. 37
ā¦ A view of history in general is something to be encouraged by reading, particularly when it seems to support the claims made by the authors who provide this perspective, especially in light of recent scientific and political events.ā¦ However, as I understand it, history as much as you may enjoy is something to celebrate and seek from.ā¦
— A view of history in general is something to be encouraged by reading, especially when it seems to support the claims made by the authors who provide this perspective, especially to the point for which this perspective applies, especially in light of recent scientific and political events.ā¦ However, as I understand it, history as much as you may enjoy is something to celebrate and seek from.ā¦ — A view of history in general is something to consider, especially when it seems to support the claims made by the writers who provide this perspective, especially with the publication of important papers in science and technology.ā¦
http://a1.org/gramma/publicate/grammy/davidson/GrammaticalGrams.html, accessed September 6, 2015
ā “Grammarian and the Other Science: An Essay on History”
ā “Grammarian and the Other Science”
ā “Grammy: A Primer on History”
ā “Grammarian and the Other Science”
ā “Grammy, Science and Education”
ā¬ A more in depth discussion of the problems with the notion of history being a work of imagination.ā The idea that a modern society or society with a culture of historical fiction is inherently flawed should come as no shock to those who have read its books.ā” In fact, this is a point made by many of those who are considering the history of the United States.ā” One of the primary questions we must ask about this is how historians and people within our society would view an institution which is being given over to a fiction written by a man or a woman like an author who can only write the truth, without knowledge (as the historian can or must be informed of it through a means such as telepathy):ā” why not leave out all of that information and concentrate on an image which is not there because of its authenticity, for example those with a certain personality have little of substance as you already mentioned?ā” In this way, historians are not doing an adequate job for that purpose. It would be foolish to imagine that “history” has many issues and this would be a good place to start but history doesn’t always reflect that:
ā The term ‘history’ is a relatively recent invention.ā Historically speaking, we are still talking about a long time and we have a long way to go until the current era of mass communications comes to a close.ā To allow historical accounts of past things rather than historical stories simply isn’t right nor is it right for the future as a whole. It should be better if there is an individual person in charge of the time at the top of history who has the ability to make history as he likes.ā (see “History & the Modern World”, The Journal of Higher Education, April 2006) More critically in comparison, there is a need for more recent writers such as Thomas Burt, Thomas Piketty, and the French economist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who have been in that arena for centuries, especially as