What do you think?
Rate this book
历史表现
“表现”原本是美学和文学理论中的范畴，安克斯密特将之引入关于历史叙述的讨论，在这一意义上，历史叙述就像肖像画，它不是有关对象的摄影反映，因而不能充当证件照，但却是人物风神的丰富表现。作者在本书中从“史学理论”、“历史意识”、“史学理论家”三个层次，系统讨论了他的历史表现理论，反映了历史哲学领域的前沿进展。
本书充分认识到，历史写作在满足理性的、科学的探究要求的同时，审美也是其内在固有的要素。为了恰当理解历史写作的性质，应该区分表现与描述，并且以表现概念为核心，重新来定义诸如意义、真理和指称等传统的语义学工具。
本书的目的，是要在历史研究的文学进路之铺张与实证研究之节制中间界定并探寻某种中道。这一思路导向了历史研究的一种理性主义美学，在重申历史写作的审美维度的同时，也再次肯定了历史学科之合理性。
本书充分认识到，历史写作在满足理性的、科学的探究要求的同时，审美也是其内在固有的要素。为了恰当理解历史写作的性质，应该区分表现与描述，并且以表现概念为核心，重新来定义诸如意义、真理和指称等传统的语义学工具。
本书的目的，是要在历史研究的文学进路之铺张与实证研究之节制中间界定并探寻某种中道。这一思路导向了历史研究的一种理性主义美学，在重申历史写作的审美维度的同时，也再次肯定了历史学科之合理性。
- GenresHistoryPhilosophy
350 pages, Paperback
First published January 2, 2002
67 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 15, 2013
For full disclosure I did not read all of this book, just the sections that were relevant to the project I am working on.
Ankersmit's book is a very intelligent and challenging exploration of the role language plays in constructing histories, and the ethical importance of working with histories, rather than History. Ankersmit is very interested in the nature of representation, which it turns out is a much more complex question than one might initially think. Ankersmit's theory suggests (if I understand him correctly) that representation is the wrong way to go about thinking about history, instead of thinking that a text 'represents' say the Renaissance, we should say that the text is 'about' the Renaissance. Although this may seem like a minor distinction, 'aboutness' acknowledges the limitedness of any given historical account and the multiplicity of other accounts that all have some degree of validity in describing a particular historical event, era, or trend. In other words, to be 'about' an event like the Renaissance suggests that this individual historical account presents a specific interpretation of one or more components of the thing being linguistically identified as the 'Renaissance,' but there are other potential accounts focusing on other potential components and understanding the term 'Renaissance' in a different way.
Ankersmit's book is a very intelligent and challenging exploration of the role language plays in constructing histories, and the ethical importance of working with histories, rather than History. Ankersmit is very interested in the nature of representation, which it turns out is a much more complex question than one might initially think. Ankersmit's theory suggests (if I understand him correctly) that representation is the wrong way to go about thinking about history, instead of thinking that a text 'represents' say the Renaissance, we should say that the text is 'about' the Renaissance. Although this may seem like a minor distinction, 'aboutness' acknowledges the limitedness of any given historical account and the multiplicity of other accounts that all have some degree of validity in describing a particular historical event, era, or trend. In other words, to be 'about' an event like the Renaissance suggests that this individual historical account presents a specific interpretation of one or more components of the thing being linguistically identified as the 'Renaissance,' but there are other potential accounts focusing on other potential components and understanding the term 'Renaissance' in a different way.
March 7, 2016
the etymology of representation gives us access to its ontological properties: `we may re-present something by presenting a subtitute of this thing in its absence. the real thing is not, or is no longer available to us, and something else is given to us in order to replace it... representation and what they represent are ontologically equivalent` [11-12:]
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews