This paper argues for realistic historiography, criticizing unrealistic historiography. My assertion is accomplished by the following two theses. 1) Although various interpretations of history are permitted, it does not mean that it is acceptable to interpret history arbitrarily. 2) Historiography without historical viewpoint is blind, while historical viewpoint without objective historiography is empty. In order to justify the first thesis, I examine the viewpoint in detail. 1) The viewpoint classifies into two kinds. One is to represent things in light of a special reference point. The other is to twist things through a framework. I call the former “perspective viewpoint”, and the latter “projective viewpoint”. 2) The viewpoint, perspective or projective, has a degree, about which we can measure. 3) We can compare results from each viewpoint, changing the viewpoint. Finally, I characterize the historical viewpoint as follows. 1) The historical viewpoint is a transcendental condition for historiography. There is no historiography without historical viewpoint. However, the historical viewpoint is not a cognitive frame which binds us. It is not justified that the historical viewpoint should be discarded in order to write history objectively as in Ranke’s style. 2) The structure of historical viewpoint is formalized in detail according to the scientific research program of critical rationalism. 3) The historical viewpoint is hypothesis which is yet to be justified. It is transcendental that it is required before the historiography, but it is a tentative theory since it should be justified by facts. Moreover, some theories can be superior than others, and we can create as many objective and comprehensive hypotheses as possible.
(0)
(0)