慶應義塾大学学術情報リポジトリ(KOARA)KeiO Associated Repository of Academic resources

慶應義塾大学学術情報リポジトリ(KOARA)

Home  »»  Listing item  »»  Detail

Detail

Item Type Article
ID
AN00100104-19750600-0001  
Preview
Image
thumbnail  
Caption  
Full text
AN00100104-19750600-0001.pdf
Type :application/pdf Download
Size :628.0 KB
Last updated :Jan 18, 2012
Downloads : 1279

Total downloads since Jan 18, 2012 : 1279
 
Release Date
 
Title
Title 「理解」から「説明」へ : 歴史的認識の一問題として  
Kana 「リカイ」 カラ 「セツメイ」 エ : レキシテキ ニンシキ ノ イチ モンダイ ト シテ  
Romanization "Rikai" kara "setsumei" e : rekishiteki ninshiki no ichi mondai to shite  
Other Title
Title From "Understanding" to "Explanation"  
Kana  
Romanization  
Creator
Name 神山, 四郎  
Kana コウヤマ, シロウ  
Romanization Koyama, Shiro  
Affiliation 慶応義塾大学文学部  
Affiliation (Translated) Keio University  
Role  
Link  
Edition
 
Place
東京  
Publisher
Name 三田史学会  
Kana ミタ シガクカイ  
Romanization Mita shigakukai  
Date
Issued (from:yyyy) 1975  
Issued (to:yyyy)  
Created (yyyy-mm-dd)  
Updated (yyyy-mm-dd)  
Captured (yyyy-mm-dd)  
Physical description
 
Source Title
Name 史学  
Name (Translated) The historical science  
Volume 46  
Issue 4  
Year 1975  
Month 6  
Start page 1(353)  
End page 11(363)  
ISSN
03869334  
ISBN
 
DOI
URI
JaLCDOI
NII Article ID
 
Ichushi ID
 
Other ID
 
Doctoral dissertation
Dissertation Number  
Date of granted  
Degree name  
Degree grantor  
Abstract
One of the crucial problems in contemporary philosophy of history is to determine which is more relevant-historical explanation or historical understanding. Writers on this question may be divided into three types- (1) Idealists, (2) Covering-law theorists, and (3) Reactionists, as M. Mandelbaum has summed them up. I think the only possible approach, in current theoretical arguments, is the third one, which accepts, besides explanation by covering-law, some sort of understanding, especially when it is concerned with a more complicated account of human actions. It does not neccessarilly follow, however, that understanding is a peculiar way of historical inquiry rather than a kind of provisionary account which has still to be 'filled out' by some more rigorous explanation. Historians surely try not just to describe the given events, but to explain them. Thus, 'understanding' might be said to lie in the middle of 'description' and 'explanation'; historians would first describe the events as they were given, and then by attempting to answer the 'why' of these events they would proceed to 'understand' them, and finally when this 'why' could be answered objectively such an 'understanding' might be replaced by an 'explanation.' This, is basically the same in all areas of scientific inquiry of which history may be a rather incomplete one. Thus, the other several kinds of historical explanations, which are supposed to be peculiar to history according to W. Dray and others, would be after all reduced to the Hempelian model of explanation. It is true that historians may seldom succeed in giving explanations as satisfactory as those of physicists, but this does not preclude historians from filling out their explanations. I suppose that the very process of this 'filling out' constitutes progress in the field of historical studies. Scientific explanation is merely a logical instrument of our historical thinking, and need not be extended to a problem of, say, historical perspective, which is surely open to the philosophy of history.
 
Table of contents

 
Keyword
 
NDC
 
Note
論文
 
Language
日本語  
Type of resource
text  
Genre
Journal Article  
Text version
publisher  
Related DOI
Access conditions

 
Last modified date
Jan 18, 2012 09:00:00  
Creation date
Jan 18, 2012 09:00:00  
Registerd by
mediacenter
 
History
 
Index
/ Public / Faculty of Letters / The historical science / 46 (1974) / 46(4) 197506
 
Related to