{"title":"我们所有人都拥有同一个世界","authors":"Bennett Gilbert","doi":"10.1111/hith.12255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>While much of Donald Bloxham's <i>History and Morality</i> is devoted to analyzing the evaluative processes of historians, Bloxham develops and relies on two strong philosophical concepts. The first is his claim that context must be understood as causality because a historical context is one of the causes of actions. Bloxham uses this to argue that historians must ascribe responsibility to past actors rather than blame their cultures. A wide critique of moral relativism emerges from this principle. The second is a distinction between a type of account that explains past events or entities in terms of their internal, unified natures and a type that understands them in terms of their relations to the rest of their world. Here, Bloxham's great concern is the isolation of forces from one another that helps to put them into conflict. The twentieth-century nation-state is the most important example of this. The “internalist” approach was part of what led to the Holocaust, to which Bloxham has dedicated most of his scholarly life. These two concepts anchor and justify historians in morally evaluating the decisions and deeds they study. But these ideas also point to deeper and more fully philosophical conceptions supporting moral evaluation that historians should practice in an exemplary way and that link historical consciousness to the chief issues of moral philosophy.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47473,"journal":{"name":"History and Theory","volume":"61 2","pages":"352-368"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE SAME WORLD FOR ALL OF US\",\"authors\":\"Bennett Gilbert\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hith.12255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>While much of Donald Bloxham's <i>History and Morality</i> is devoted to analyzing the evaluative processes of historians, Bloxham develops and relies on two strong philosophical concepts. The first is his claim that context must be understood as causality because a historical context is one of the causes of actions. Bloxham uses this to argue that historians must ascribe responsibility to past actors rather than blame their cultures. A wide critique of moral relativism emerges from this principle. The second is a distinction between a type of account that explains past events or entities in terms of their internal, unified natures and a type that understands them in terms of their relations to the rest of their world. Here, Bloxham's great concern is the isolation of forces from one another that helps to put them into conflict. The twentieth-century nation-state is the most important example of this. The “internalist” approach was part of what led to the Holocaust, to which Bloxham has dedicated most of his scholarly life. These two concepts anchor and justify historians in morally evaluating the decisions and deeds they study. But these ideas also point to deeper and more fully philosophical conceptions supporting moral evaluation that historians should practice in an exemplary way and that link historical consciousness to the chief issues of moral philosophy.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Theory\",\"volume\":\"61 2\",\"pages\":\"352-368\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12255\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12255","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
While much of Donald Bloxham's History and Morality is devoted to analyzing the evaluative processes of historians, Bloxham develops and relies on two strong philosophical concepts. The first is his claim that context must be understood as causality because a historical context is one of the causes of actions. Bloxham uses this to argue that historians must ascribe responsibility to past actors rather than blame their cultures. A wide critique of moral relativism emerges from this principle. The second is a distinction between a type of account that explains past events or entities in terms of their internal, unified natures and a type that understands them in terms of their relations to the rest of their world. Here, Bloxham's great concern is the isolation of forces from one another that helps to put them into conflict. The twentieth-century nation-state is the most important example of this. The “internalist” approach was part of what led to the Holocaust, to which Bloxham has dedicated most of his scholarly life. These two concepts anchor and justify historians in morally evaluating the decisions and deeds they study. But these ideas also point to deeper and more fully philosophical conceptions supporting moral evaluation that historians should practice in an exemplary way and that link historical consciousness to the chief issues of moral philosophy.
期刊介绍:
History and Theory leads the way in exploring the nature of history. Prominent international thinkers contribute their reflections in the following areas: critical philosophy of history, speculative philosophy of history, historiography, history of historiography, historical methodology, critical theory, and time and culture. Related disciplines are also covered within the journal, including interactions between history and the natural and social sciences, the humanities, and psychology.