Comparing for perfection - History Study -

1. without questions.

In history field, to distinguish historical fact and historical interpretation is important. Except temporary historical events that are actually happening in front of us, most of the historical events which took place in the past remain in written form written by others who lived in the past. when we go over historical materials, one thing we should not forget is that every text implies the specific point of veiw of writter. That is why historian is highly required to have the ability to distinguish fact and interpretation. when we are stuck and confused, we should rely on our discretion and intelligence not to jump to unfounded conclusion. in addition, that aspect can explain why every historian digs into searching other historical clues, even though they already have some clues to induce the situations in the past. Just one clue has critical risk to lead us to totally different scenery of the past in favor of person who wrote or kept those historical materials.

At the same time, however, this process is really confusing. Because it raises crucial question about “What is fact anyway.” As human being, as the entity of pondering, we all have our own point of view to see the world. It could be socially imposed or just developed on personal experiences. But no matter how the process is different, the point of view screens all of the information that we see, hear, sense into specific kind of novel that we want to make. Some people compare it to the process which draw a portrait out of a picture. We exaggerate, omit, distort the real image. So when we think we eventually grab the truth, nothing just remains in our hands. That is why one historical material can have a lot of interpretation. Through different kind of prism we get to different kind of world. In fact, an confidence to observe the world as it is is impossible and arrogant to some extent. Nothing exist autonomously in the world.

The problem to make the situation even worse is our heuristic tendency in interpreting the information. The heuristic tendency is psychologic algorithm to avoid bothersome process in encountering new information. We just rake a balls of criterions available right now in our brain to interpretate new information, rather than go to library, access to internet or meet other people to make up for the lack of tools to see the world. If those kind of induction experiences continue, we ourselves strengthen our existing stance to see the world. With time we start to take that point of view for granted.

Sometime we can’t even think about trying to have doubt about the truth of historical event. We just think it is only conclusion out of proper reasoning. Even though this interpretation is drown by others whom we don’t know, we have never met in person. With heuristic tendency, instilled information has its own power and deceives us to believe it is only criterion. In other words it is the power of education. Criterions which are educated and deeply rooted in our brain take great effect on the information interpreting process. Even in university where people think grown up man freely chooses what they want to learn, they can’t erase the shadow of the influence of teachers, textbooks in classes. That means even intensely trained historians can fail to be impartial to deal with historical materials.

 

2. otherized eyes.

When it comes to reducing that risk, it is good approach to refer to other’s point of view, especially in other field. when people who are barely influenced by typical education process in certain field start to research what happened in the past, they rarely have enough background information to construct the scene of the past. So they just rely on the reasoning process taking perusal of materials. In contrary to people who already have some background information about what will happen after specific event or which event caused that conclusion, a lot of question pop up in other’s mind to make up for the chasm between texts. Then they make up their own hypothesis to answer question and make more plausible reality.

Professor Jonathan W. Best’s opinion on establishment of paekche is good example. This part could be controversial because we don’t have enough information to explain the exact date of establishment of paekche. In addition, historical materials at our hands point out different dates. This point make problem harder to solve. However this problem has not been played up loudly in Korea history field.

It can stand for different attitude to trace historical event. We including historians have been influenced by legends that say onjo was direct migrant from very early days of kokuryo or fuyu. However official records of China point out the end of second or the start of the third century AD. In this problem we just take our legend for granted and have hope to find another evidence which matches with our legend. In contrast to us, he erases missing link by redefining onjo as a person in time of AD, complying with china official record.

This argument bring us important message. We have been believing thing without well founded evidence, just with legend. And it also give us efficient method to prove historical fact. That is comparing. Refuting questions or hypothetic explanations which people suggest only based on restricted information, we can rethink what was real and restart to trace the details of historical event. Being stimulated by other point of view, we can get to the new phase of historical analysis. By filling for the lack of information, by destructing the former tendency we are obsessed with, we can step forward to more plausible reality. The effects that are caused by otherized view can have more powerful influence than we expect. So it is crucially necessary to share the historical ideas with other fields of scholars or ordinary people.

Unfortunately Korean history department has been severing the ties with other field and countries. less scholars are willing to refer to other countries’s opinions on historical explanations. expecially in Seoul National University’s Korean history research, the problem is even severe because our history department is separated into 3 other departments :Korean history, Western history, Asian history. The flow idea seems to be blocked by the separation, and we are facing the limitation to explain the world as a whole. We are not omniscient entity. By comparing, we can more successfully do our works.