Truth (original) (raw)
Related papers
History Ireland Vol 28 No 6, 2020
In a decade overshadowed by centenaries it is perhaps inevitable that fiftieth anniversaries are somewhat neglected, particularly south of the Border, where the more recent Troubles are often regarded as less relevant to the story of nation building, or even as too problematic and recent to be addressed in a historical context. Yet, as the President of Ireland Michael D Higgins said on the recent Centenary of the Sack of Balbriggan, 'If forgiveness and forgetting did not exist, we would be trapped in the past where every previous action would be irrevocable and where the present is dominated, burdened even, by preceding events and memories.' This article argues that truth recovery is better than either oblivion or keeping score.
Truth in History and Literature
Narrative, 2010
is professor for intellectual history and philosophy of history at Groningen University. He has written many books on philosophy of history, political philosophy and aesthetics. Forthcoming is his two volume The Aesthetics of History and Politics.
Post-Truth - A Historical Amnesia or A Neo-colonial Imposition!.pdf
Post-Truth: A Historical Amnesia, or a Neo-colonial Imposition?
Abstract: Soon after its inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary in 2016, the word ‘Post-Truth’ has gained an unprecedented presence and prominence in public and intellectual discourses. Common citizens and netizens seem to be completely awed by its unparalleled use and appearance. In the academic circles, particularly in universities and other educational establishments, post-truth has had its strong impacts too. Contrary to how the word has baffled the public as something new and radical, there has been however a historicity of epistemological debates on Truth, its nature and ethics. The Present paper therefore attempts to deconstruct the amnesia of academia and the ignorance of public of the historical antecedents of Post-Truth.
Beyond truth an epistemic normativity for historiography1
Rethinking History, 2022
How can we compare two historical narratives about the same occurrence when each of the narratives satisfies the criteria of truth but nevertheless, portray incongruent views about the past? To answer such a question, we can identify a conservative view in history that commits to a correspondence theory of the past that argues that the scrutiny of the primary and secondary sources alongside a precise division of what counts as ‘objective facts’ and ‘subjective information’ can discern which narrative is the correct one. In other words, they value ‘truth as correspondence’ as the ultimate way to settle epistemological disagreements. In this paper, I challenge such a view and argue that it does not answer our primary question. I will propose a new standard for historiographic normativity, one that takes Catherine Elgin’s notion of understanding and Alva Noë’s idea of reorganization at its center. I will further argue that Elgin and Noë’s work allows us to bring Arthur Danto’s idea of redescription and Louis Mink’s notion of understanding from the descriptive to the normative realm.