0:10 History is not just a bunch of facts. 0:41 The Historian adds narrative to facts. 1:00 Narrative Structure 2:24 Clear begin middle end 2:41 Assassination of Frank Ferdinand. 3:52 Story of life that suddenly ends. 4:10 Things just happen to people. 5:53 4 Genres 6:31 Hegel. 7:50 Hempel. 9:02 Philosophical Consequences of Genres. 9:52 You will find what you look for.
You wouldn't perhaps have a video lecture series like these ones on Heidegger anywhere that I could go have a look at would you - or anything really, I love listening to your lectures. Besides just being drawn in by your clear and concise way of delivering some technical material into nice, bit size chunks - leaning heavily on your method and style of teaching -you have helped me develop my classes to something better than it was before! Thank You. Do you lecture in anything else - I would love to view that series as well.
This is great! Thank you for explaining White's theory so clearly. If I wanted to use this as a source for my thesis, how could I cite it? In other words, of course I would cite your video but from which of White's books did you acquire the material? Thank You!!!
A very clear and well done introduction. It is technically an overview of the way in which the concept of emplotment was subsequently used as a shorthand for the philosophical implications postmodernist historians took from White's much longer and more detailed treatment of nineteenth century history. The actual theory of Metahistory, the lengthiest of White's treatments, is more complex and its interpretation more interesting - something I did a video about some time ago (th-cam.com/video/YMrTcDuQyho/w-d-xo.html).
Because the story of current history is not yet complete, none of these genres can ever be said to fully apply exept partially and in disconnected instances. As for past history, because there is always inadequate data, none of the categories can apply either. In all cases of analysis of history, authorial points of view and biases need to be talken into account. So none of these categories can succeed in naming a stage in history. However, all of the categories are certainly useful for analysing limitaions of historians' attempts to define what happened in the past.
How exactly does it follow that you have written satire from trying to stay with plain accounts of events that have evidently happened without adding your personal views as a writer? It seems to me that the lack of adding personal interpretation/meaning of 'the facts' doesn't necessarily imply a satirical world view per se. Can it not just as well imply a to-the-writer-meaningful sequence of events, of which their personal perspective is left out as much as possible to leave room for the reader to ascribe their own meaning to the sequence of events?
Yes, they are just two sides of the same coin (i.e., one is inversion of the other). White draws a lot of this from Northrop Frye's literary theory. All four genres are related by different factors. Tragedy is a failure to escape fate. Romance is an escape of "fate" through effort. Comedy is success a success or "reconciliation" that happens by fate. Satire is the denial of fate.
ugh please skip the notion of social market democracy being a synthesis of socialism and capitalism. it's just capitalism (yeah, capitalism can have features that seem "socialist" to reproduce itself on a longer term in a relatively wealthy country). the main principles of socialism ( for example the democratic access to the means of production, the abolishment of capital) however is not granted at all. good video besides that side note: hegel explicitly values the comedy over the tragedy in terms of the development of spirit
0:10 History is not just a bunch of facts.
0:41 The Historian adds narrative to facts.
1:00 Narrative Structure
2:24 Clear begin middle end
2:41 Assassination of Frank Ferdinand.
3:52 Story of life that suddenly ends.
4:10 Things just happen to people.
5:53 4 Genres
6:31 Hegel.
7:50 Hempel.
9:02 Philosophical Consequences of Genres.
9:52 You will find what you look for.
tnx a lot
That line about laughing while reading Hegel had me rolling on the floor. This series has been superb!
brilliantly explained. thank you for doing the series.
😮
00:07:41 "...that does not mean we laugh a lot when we read Hegel: because believe me, we don't" 😂👌
Very nice! I'm from Brasil and I'm planning to read White soon. Your video is a great introduction to this polemic historian.
You wouldn't perhaps have a video lecture series like these ones on Heidegger anywhere that I could go have a look at would you - or anything really, I love listening to your lectures. Besides just being drawn in by your clear and concise way of delivering some technical material into nice, bit size chunks - leaning heavily on your method and style of teaching -you have helped me develop my classes to something better than it was before! Thank You. Do you lecture in anything else - I would love to view that series as well.
loooool .. that doesn't mean we will laugh when we read Hegel, Because. Believe me. We. Don't! :D .. awesome!
Hello... I must say your lectures made my understanding better about history and I am enjoying my subject more than before... Thank you
At 13:51, actually the end of Ferdinand's life would figure in the first sentence of his history,
as that is the significant event of his life!
Very clear presentation and analysis of some quite complex things!
Thank you so much for your work. I find your explanations super clear, interesting and well illustrated :):):)
What's the major difference between the thought of White and Paul Veyne? Thank you!
Keep the good work up
This is great! Thank you for explaining White's theory so clearly. If I wanted to use this as a source for my thesis, how could I cite it? In other words, of course I would cite your video but from which of White's books did you acquire the material? Thank You!!!
Mostly the first part of his Metahistory, as well as secondary literature. (Which I did not archive.)
Hegel gettin so much shade rn
He is not a Hegel lover
A very clear and well done introduction. It is technically an overview of the way in which the concept of emplotment was subsequently used as a shorthand for the philosophical implications postmodernist historians took from White's much longer and more detailed treatment of nineteenth century history. The actual theory of Metahistory, the lengthiest of White's treatments, is more complex and its interpretation more interesting - something I did a video about some time ago (th-cam.com/video/YMrTcDuQyho/w-d-xo.html).
Best teacher
Because the story of current history is not yet complete, none of these genres can ever be said to fully apply exept partially and in disconnected instances. As for past history, because there is always inadequate data, none of the categories can apply either. In all cases of analysis of history, authorial points of view and biases need to be talken into account. So none of these categories can succeed in naming a stage in history. However, all of the categories are certainly useful for analysing limitaions of historians' attempts to define what happened in the past.
What if the story is historical fiction. How can we identify the narratives? Im doing phd research on the subject. Help anyone?
Thank you so much
Can anyone tell. Me the 4 forms of argumentation, 4 types of political ideologies and rhetorical figures?
How exactly does it follow that you have written satire from trying to stay with plain accounts of events that have evidently happened without adding your personal views as a writer? It seems to me that the lack of adding personal interpretation/meaning of 'the facts' doesn't necessarily imply a satirical world view per se. Can it not just as well imply a to-the-writer-meaningful sequence of events, of which their personal perspective is left out as much as possible to leave room for the reader to ascribe their own meaning to the sequence of events?
this helped a lot, Thank you
I love you bro
i love so much the presentationi
Is it just me, or is the romantic and the tragic two sides of the same coin?
Yes, they are just two sides of the same coin (i.e., one is inversion of the other). White draws a lot of this from Northrop Frye's literary theory. All four genres are related by different factors. Tragedy is a failure to escape fate. Romance is an escape of "fate" through effort. Comedy is success a success or "reconciliation" that happens by fate. Satire is the denial of fate.
a historian does a can do a lot things that when it comes to history and founding out about facts.
👍
Man..... your good!
No one will laugh while reading Hegel XD.
I did... he has a funny way of expressing himself... and he sure likes his beer
ugh please skip the notion of social market democracy being a synthesis of socialism and capitalism. it's just capitalism (yeah, capitalism can have features that seem "socialist" to reproduce itself on a longer term in a relatively wealthy country). the main principles of socialism ( for example the democratic access to the means of production, the abolishment of capital) however is not granted at all.
good video besides that
side note: hegel explicitly values the comedy over the tragedy in terms of the development of spirit
So interesting. Are there any resources that go into detail on just this?
nice shirt
TOK
Mbuh ora ngerti apa kang gol ente ngomong Aken cah puyeng ikih Macae gah
Lose the shirt man.
when writting about history make sure you write about the facts.