If history is written with agenda or is heavily influenced by the historian, is it possible to come up with an absolute historical truth? If it is not, is it worthwhile to study history?
Answers
Answer:
The short answer is no BUT IT IS NOT A WASTE OF TIME TO TRY.
We LIVE in the flow of history and the event that happen around us are largely opaque. We don’t really even know the full meaning of what we ourselves do.
Bias is everywhere especially within ourselves.
There’s a fascinating history to be discovered about the hinges on my front door but I’m probably not going to pursue that. So I, along with everyone, have a selection bias as to what I might bother to study.
And much of the information I might pursue if I did choose to do a history of those hinges is gone - people didn’t bother keeping it because of their selection bias. They didn’t think it was worthy of history. So there’s an availability bias.
Post moderns and deconstructionist FOCUS on these and other biases. They might say, select what you want from what you find and provide a narrative that supports what you want to support.
People aware of deconstructionist critique might tell you that everything is ultimately unintelligible. Any story you pursue will ultimately come apart in your hands like a clump of wet sands as it dries.
History is subjective. It depends on the interpretation of every individual. History comes with the fact, that different historians present it in different ways.
History will never be absolute, but among various beliefs, one which is largely based on science and facts is considered to be true. For example, if we see the decline of the Harappan civilization, many historians come up with numerous possibilities. We consider what sounds most feasible.
It is worthwhile to study history because it gives us the idea and experience that our ancestors got with certain calamities and disasters. We get an opportunity to know that and prevent from repeating those mistakes.
#SPJ3