.

Dear George,

.

You quoted Herbert Butterfield’s warning:

“The study of the past with one eye upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history”.

The word “sins” is no more part of my vocabulary than the word “evil” for the same reasons as indicated in my previous post : “it has a religious connotation and I have heard it in the mouths of particularly lecherous individuals who pronounce the word with undisguised appetence”.

Also, anybody who suggests I should not look at something from any and as many perspectives as it pleases me to do so, and make whatever comparisons I see fit, is most unlikely to receive my approbation. I am not disposed to turn a blind eye to anything or anybody.

I consider Butterfield’s recommendation to be detrimental to the revelation and comprehension of historical facts. To find the right answers, it is important to find the right questions – and some of those questions may not surface, or occur to us, until many years after the event – due to current circumstances – due to “an eye on the present” - which Butterfield explicitly and emphatically advises against.

Past, present and future do not and cannot exist independently. They, necessarily and inevitably, influence each other. Even the greatest historical ruptures and the most revolutionary ideas are linked to what went before and what came after. Unless I am mistaken, there is no such thing as effect without cause nor cause without effect.

Which is why I consider that a holistic view is superior to a partial view (all else being equal). Had he said that I should have agreed with him. But he didn’t.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

You also wrote:

“I am afraid it still does trespass against the quoted above reminder by Herbert Butterfield that “all our judgments (e.g. about Paul’s ‘attitude towards sexuality’ and what today can be seen as his ‘intolerance’) are merely relative to time and circumstance”.

This, again, is an eminently partial view. A holistic view is to see them, not “merely” but “also” … relative to time and circumstance. Forgive me for saying this, but I find your friend, Butterfield, a little narrow-minded. His broad-sweeping statement does nor stem from an open mind. It is only partially true.

The broken leg of a Neanderthal man (whose DNA differed from ours by only 0.15%), was no different from the broken leg of my next door neighbour.

By the same token, Saul’s hysterical neurosis and/or chronic psychotic illness, at the root of his “attitude towards sexuality” and what today can be seen as his “intolerance” , was no different from any number of similar cases in the world today.

Broken legs and psychiatric disorders have been constant, not “relative to time and circumstance”.

In fact, I feel rather inclined to apply Butterfield's qualifying term of "sophistry" to his own method of reasoning which, if not totally false, I consider to be false as a general principle, but possibly valid in certain specific instances which would need to be defined in detail.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for spelling out for me in such detail your views on this matter.

I am not a historian, so I cannot compare Paul’s attitude to sexuality, etc to that of his contemporaries. Neither can I provide professional counter-arguments in defense of Butterfield’s views expressed in a book I have not read, only found referred to by Steven Weinberg - an authority on theoretical physics who obviously saw Butterfield as an authority on historiography - in his criticism of social constructivism views about natural science. Besides, Weinberg explicitly states that Butterfield’s criticism of the “Whig interpretation of history” does not apply to where matters of natural science are concerned (like your Neanderthal’s broken leg).

From what I understand about history, including my own personal memories, I find Butterfield’s insights confirmed and to my liking. They are obviously not to yours.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

“From what I understand about history, including my own personal memories, I find Butterfield’s insights confirmed and to my liking. They are obviously not to yours”.

I’m afraid I had never heard of the gentleman before you mentioned his name.

I was simply commenting on the text you posted in which he described his opinion and recommendation for what he calls “the study of the past”, in other words: “history”, and his statement that ““all our judgments … are merely relative to time and circumstance”.

As I think you must by now be aware, I have the utmost respect for your opinion – whatever the subject – there is no doubt in my mind that Butterfield’s “insights” are exactly as you say they are.

How he manages to obtain such excellent results with such a poor method is a total mystery to me.

Either there just happened to be nothing else to uncover in the particular period or field of enquiry he worked on, or, perhaps he may have been able to obtain even better results if he had used all the possibilities that were open to him – instead of closing one eye.

.

Dear Banjo,

I have also respect for your opinion, and if I am not as keen to proclaim a scientist’s or other specialist’s research methods poor it is because I have no qualifications in his/her field, which in this case is historiography.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

“… if I am not as keen to proclaim a scientist’s or other specialist’s research methods poor it is because I have no qualifications in his/her field, which in this case is historiography”.

I guess we are in the same boat there, George. I am not keen to do that either, but as my formal education ceased at the end of primary school, I have no qualifications of any sort whatsoever.

If I had limited my critical thought to that for which I had formal qualifications, I should not be where I am today. As it happens, I know from a life of experience that my critical thought has rarely been found wanting when I put my mind to it, provided, of course, I am able to understand the basic concepts of the subject matter involved.

An untrained mind has its drawbacks but it can also have the odd advantage.

Naturally, to my great regret, there are many fields of knowledge in which I am totally illiterate. However, though it may seem presumptuous on my part, I do have the immodesty to believe that I am capable of expressing an opinion worthy of consideration on the matter in hand: Herbert Butterfield’s comments on historiography.

In What is Enlightenment? (1784), Immanuel Kant defined the Aufklärung as the capacity to think by oneself, without referring to an exterior authority, be it a prince or tradition:

“Enlightenment is when a person leaves behind a state of immaturity and dependence (Unmündigkeit) for which they themselves were responsible. Immaturity and dependence are the inability to use one's own intellect without the direction of another. One is responsible for this immaturity and dependence, if its cause is not a lack of intelligence or education, but a lack of determination and courage to think without the direction of another. Sapere aude! Dare to know! is therefore the slogan of the Enlightenment”.

.