武器・弾薬が底を尽きつつある中、大坂方は和睦に応じるしかなかった。大砲に怯えた淀殿が和睦を支持したという話は後世の創作にすぎない。
そもそも、根拠のないことを、近代的想像で埋めるのは、やめりや。
大砲に怯えた淀殿が和睦を支持したという話は後世の創作にすぎない。
については、歴史学を唯一科学に繋ぎとめる、文献考証上の根拠がないなら、そう「評価」していいだろう（そういった意味で、推測が常につきまとう「歴史学」が、科学なのか相当怪しく、「半科学」かもしれない）。
それはいい。
問題は、
武器・弾薬が底を尽きつつある中、
が 戦術上どのような意味か わかっているかだ。
ただの事実では、根拠的事実なのだが、それは「戦術的に確立している」があった場合の「評価関数」である。そういう理解がなく、そもそも、根拠が示されていない。
このままでは、著者が、資料の乏しさを想像で埋めたにすぎず、また、「歴史学の半科学性」の表現である「近代的物語」を著したに過ぎない。
恥ずかしい人間だ、まったく。
すなわち、大坂冬の陣は、当時の戦術の専門家にしか評価できない歴史的事実なのであった。おそらく呉座はそれが苦手なのだ。
つまり、おそらく呉座は、 ただの 歴史学者に過ぎない、素人なのである（求められるのは、 戦術学者 で、 歴史にも 通じている者であって、本末転倒である)。
なぜ、こういうことがしばしば起きるのか？
答えは、おそらく、歴史学が、総合的な学問だからである。
つまり、「歴史学」とは「歴史大学」たるユニバーシティーであって、単科で成り立つカレッジではない。「大」が抜け落ちている。
文献考証はむしろ、それだけでは科学として事実を説明するには不十分で、他学に随伴的に補助する役割にしかなり得ないところ、呉座をはじめとする「歴史学者」は、他学を補助的に、或いは、排除的に考えているから、このような倒錯的理解に至るのだろう。
歴史学はそれだけでは成り立たない。それが端的な事実である。
そして、文献考証は、 裏付けに必要な 、従たる学問に過ぎない。
なぜ、呉座が論争的か。
ただ、マルクス主義者が物語主義者で、ただ、マルクス主義歴史学者が科学を否定するからではない。
物語を語らなければ、「歴史学」そのものが成り立たないとき、呉座が政治的だからだ。もちろん、マルクス主義「歴史学」なる疑似科学は当然に否定されなければならない。
しかし、呉座の主張も似たり寄ったりなのである。
もちろん、呉座が主張することも、 たまたま 当たるかもしれない。
しかし、それは、構造的に、科学であることを否定している。
呉座の著書を読んでイライラすることがあるとすれば、この歴史学者の構造的欠陥の所為である断じて差し支えないだろう。
程度の差は在れ、近代的物語に陶酔しているに過ぎない、酔っ払いである。そして、多分に他人を攻撃する暴力癖が見え隠れする。
なにか容認しがたい教条やイデアにたいしては、反 Anti ◯◯ではなく、脱 post ◯◯で付き合うほうがよい。これは歴史学や人類学を学んだ人なら判っていることだけど、反 Anti はその対象がもつコンテクストに則り、同質化しなければ成り立たないため、摂り込まれてしまう。相手の土俵に乗ってしまう。
— 中島 智 (@nakashima001) December 28, 2023
歴史学者がそうであって欲しいよ、本当に。
歴史学以外の学問が原理で成り立ち、文献で成り立つとは限らないことから、歴史学者こそ「脱文献学」の立場を、精神能力のほんの一部で、保って欲しい。できないだろうけれど。
法学者なら、医療事故に関する裁判で、法学者のみで判断するような話である。
呉座よ。
お前そんな裁判の被告になりたいか？それくらい馬鹿げているんだよ。
小谷野も似たりよったりだから、専門性は高いが、そもそも大学の学問として、何かが欠けている。つまり、学問の学問たる、哲学である。法学には法哲学があり、法学が学問として成立する条件を考えている。これはイギリスがイギリスの法学を立ち上げる時に「理学」として必要とされた学問である。
歴史哲学は、（歴史学の成立を目指すための）理学だろうか？
そういうことである。
—Is natural science different from philosophy? Please explain from the history of jurisprudence.
Natural science and philosophy are distinct but interconnected fields that have evolved over time. The relationship between them is complex and has been a subject of debate throughout the history of jurisprudence, which is the theory and philosophy of law.
-
Natural Science:
- Natural science is concerned with the empirical study of the natural world, using systematic observation, experimentation, and analysis.
- It aims to discover and understand the laws governing the physical and natural phenomena through the scientific method.
- Examples of natural sciences include physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy.
-
Philosophy:
- Philosophy, on the other hand, is a broader field that encompasses the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
- It includes branches such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and political philosophy.
- While philosophy doesn't necessarily rely on empirical observation and experimentation like natural science, it often engages in critical reasoning and conceptual analysis.
Now, when it comes to the history of jurisprudence:
-
Ancient Period:
- In ancient times, there was often little distinction between natural science and philosophy, and both were part of a broader intellectual inquiry.
- Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle addressed questions related to law and justice as part of their philosophical exploration.
-
Medieval Period:
- During the medieval period, scholars like Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile philosophy, particularly Aristotelian thought, with Christian theology.
- The idea of natural law, which posits that there are inherent and universal principles governing human conduct, emerged from this synthesis.
-
Modern Period:
- With the advent of the scientific revolution and the rise of modern empirical science, a clearer distinction between natural science and philosophy emerged.
- Legal philosophy, or jurisprudence, began to take on a more distinct identity as scholars sought to understand the nature of law, justice, and legal systems.
-
Contemporary Period:
- In contemporary times, while natural science and philosophy are distinct disciplines, they continue to intersect, especially in areas like philosophy of science, ethics, and political philosophy.
- Jurisprudence remains an interdisciplinary field drawing on philosophy, political science, sociology, and other disciplines to analyze legal concepts and systems.
In summary, natural science and philosophy have distinct methodologies and focuses, but their interactions have shaped various intellectual pursuits, including jurisprudence. The evolution of these fields over time reflects the dynamic nature of human inquiry and the ongoing quest for understanding the fundamental aspects of our existence.
—Please explain Austin's "jurisprudence" and "the science of legislation," as elucidated in his works "The Province of Jurisprudence Determined" from 1832 and "Lectures on Jurisprudence" from 1863.
John Austin, a 19th-century legal philosopher, is best known for his work "The Province of Jurisprudence Determined," published in 1832. In this work, as well as in his later "Lectures on Jurisprudence" from 1863, Austin laid the groundwork for a legal philosophy known as legal positivism. Let's explore Austin's key concepts of "jurisprudence" and "the science of legislation" as elucidated in these works.
-
Jurisprudence:
- Austin's concept of jurisprudence is centered on the idea that it is a science concerned with positive law. Positive law, in Austin's terminology, refers to laws that have been posited or established by a recognized political authority, such as a sovereign or government.
- Austin sought to analyze law as a system of rules imposed by a sovereign, and he was particularly interested in distinguishing law from morality. According to him, the existence of a command issued by a sovereign authority is what makes something a law, regardless of its moral content.
- Jurisprudence, for Austin, involves the study and analysis of these legal rules and their source in the sovereign's command. It is a descriptive and analytical science rather than a normative or evaluative one.
-
The Science of Legislation:
- Austin used the term "the science of legislation" to refer to the practical aspect of jurisprudence. While jurisprudence is concerned with the analysis and understanding of existing legal systems, the science of legislation deals with the creation and reform of laws.
- The science of legislation involves applying the principles of jurisprudence to the task of making or modifying laws. Austin was interested in establishing a scientific basis for the art of legislation, which he saw as the application of the principles derived from jurisprudence to the practical task of creating laws.
-
Command Theory of Law:
- Central to Austin's jurisprudential philosophy is the command theory of law. According to this theory, a law is a command issued by a sovereign backed by a threat of sanction. The key elements are the command, the sovereign authority, and the consequence or penalty for disobedience.
- Austin argued that understanding law in terms of commands helps to clarify the nature of legal obligation and distinguishes law from other social phenomena.
-
Separation of Law and Morality:
- Austin emphasized the separation of law and morality. While moral principles might influence the content of laws, the existence of a law, according to Austin, is not dependent on its moral merits or conformity to natural law principles.
Austin's ideas, particularly his command theory of law and his separation of law from morality, had a significant impact on the development of legal positivism. Legal positivism, broadly speaking, is a school of thought that emphasizes the empirical and descriptive aspects of law, focusing on what the law is rather than what it ought to be. Austin's contributions laid the groundwork for subsequent legal philosophers to refine and expand upon these ideas.
—Arrange philosophers who have studied the scholarly conditions of the establishment of history as a discipline in a table based on their claims.
Arranging philosophers who have studied the scholarly conditions of the establishment of history as a discipline in a table based on their claims is a bit challenging, as the development of historical methodology involves contributions from various thinkers across different periods. However, here's a simplified table featuring some key figures and their contributions to the establishment of history as a discipline:
| Philosopher | Time Period | Key Contributions to Historical Methodology |
|---|---|---|
| Herodotus | 484–425 BCE | Considered the "Father of History"; Inquiry and Research Method |
| Thucydides | 460–395 BCE | Emphasized Critical Analysis, Causation, and Objectivity |
| Giambattista Vico | 1668–1744 | Advocated for a Science of History; Cyclical Nature of History |
| Voltaire | 1694–1778 | Critique of Traditional Histories; Emphasis on Rational Inquiry |
| Leopold von Ranke | 1795–1886 | Pioneered Source-Based History; Emphasis on Objectivity |
| Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel | 1770–1831 | Philosophical Approach to History; Dialectical Development |
| Jacob Burckhardt | 1818–1897 | Cultural History; Emphasized the "Individuality" of Periods |
| Fernand Braudel | 1902–1985 | Annales School; Focus on Long-Term Structural History |
| R.G. Collingwood | 1889–1943 | Philosophy of History; Reflection on Historical Thinking |
| E.H. Carr | 1892–1982 | Historical Realism; Importance of Interpretation |
| Arnaldo Momigliano | 1908–1987 | Contributed to the Study of Ancient History and Historiography |
| Hayden White | 1928–2018 | Meta-History; Exploration of Narrative and Discourse |
| Natalie Zemon Davis | 1928–present | Social and Cultural History; Microhistory |
| Michel Foucault | 1926–1984 | Archaeology of Knowledge; Examined the Nature of Historical Discourse |
This table provides a brief overview of some philosophers and historians who have made significant contributions to the development of historical methodology and the establishment of history as a discipline. Keep in mind that each of these figures has a rich body of work that goes beyond what is briefly mentioned in the table.
—Among philosophers who studied the scholarly conditions for the establishment of history as a discipline, was there anyone who, through reasoned analysis, clearly distinguished and independently established the conditions for the emergence of history and the conditions for the establishment of historiography?
The distinction between the emergence of history and the establishment of historiography is a nuanced aspect in the development of historical thought. While various philosophers and historians have contributed to the understanding of historical methodology and the conditions for the establishment of history as a discipline, it's challenging to point to a single individual who explicitly and independently distinguished these conditions through reasoned analysis.
Historical thinking has evolved over time, and different thinkers have contributed to various aspects of the discipline. However, the emergence of history and the establishment of historiography are often intertwined, and the development of historiography is a gradual process shaped by multiple factors.
Philosophers like Leopold von Ranke, who is often considered a pioneer in modern source-based history, emphasized the importance of relying on primary sources and objectivity. While his work laid the groundwork for a more rigorous approach to history, it's essential to note that the delineation between the emergence of history and the establishment of historiography is not always explicit in the works of individual philosophers.
In summary, while many philosophers have significantly contributed to the development of historical methodology and the establishment of history as a discipline, the specific distinction between the emergence of history and the establishment of historiography may not have been independently and explicitly articulated by a single individual. It is often a collective and gradual process shaped by the contributions of various thinkers over time.
—When Leopold von Ranke emphasized the importance of reliance on primary sources and objectivity, did he argue that objectivity is a scientific aspect that independently establishes itself apart from textual criticism?
Leopold von Ranke, a 19th-century historian and often considered the founder of modern source-based history, did emphasize the importance of reliance on primary sources and objectivity in historical research. However, it's crucial to understand that his conception of objectivity was closely tied to his approach to historical methodology, including textual criticism.
Ranke believed in the meticulous examination and interpretation of primary sources as the foundation of historical inquiry. His emphasis on objectivity was rooted in the idea that historians should strive to present historical events as they actually occurred, avoiding subjective biases and interpretations. Ranke argued that by critically analyzing and comparing various primary sources, historians could approach a more objective understanding of the past.
In Ranke's view, objectivity wasn't a detached, scientific aspect that independently establishes itself apart from textual criticism. Instead, he saw it as a quality that emerges through rigorous engagement with historical sources, careful examination, and critical evaluation of evidence. The process of textual criticism, including the careful scrutiny of historical documents, was central to achieving the objectivity he advocated for in historical research.
Therefore, while Ranke championed objectivity, he saw it as intimately connected to the methods of textual criticism and the thorough examination of primary sources, emphasizing a disciplined and critical approach to historical investigation.
—When Leopold von Ranke emphasized the importance of relying on primary sources and objectivity, did he seek objectivity in accordance with the traditions of philology by looking for textual evidence in the interpretation of documents?
Yes, Leopold von Ranke's emphasis on relying on primary sources and objectivity was closely aligned with the traditions of philology. Philology is the study of language in historical texts, and it involves the critical examination of textual evidence. Ranke, influenced by the principles of philology, applied a rigorous and systematic approach to the interpretation of historical documents.
Ranke believed in the meticulous examination of original sources, such as letters, official documents, and other firsthand accounts. His method involved carefully scrutinizing these primary sources to extract factual information. In doing so, he sought to establish an objective and accurate representation of historical events.
Ranke's approach was akin to the practices of philology, where scholars analyze language, context, and textual variations to arrive at a deeper understanding of historical texts. By focusing on primary sources and engaging in textual criticism, Ranke aimed to ensure that his historical narratives were grounded in empirical evidence and free from subjective interpretations.
Therefore, Ranke's pursuit of objectivity in historical research, through a reliance on primary sources and a philological approach to textual evidence, reflects a commitment to the traditions of philology as a means to establish a more accurate and reliable understanding of the past.
—Explain the difference in their conceptions of objectivity based on the methodological differences between John Austin and Leopold von Ranke.
John Austin and Leopold von Ranke were scholars in different fields, with Austin being a legal philosopher and Ranke a historian. Therefore, their conceptions of objectivity were shaped by the specific methodological demands and contexts of their respective disciplines.
John Austin:
- Field: Austin was primarily concerned with legal philosophy and is best known for his work on jurisprudence.
- Conception of Objectivity: Austin's conception of objectivity in legal philosophy was rooted in his command theory of law. According to Austin, laws are commands issued by a sovereign authority backed by a threat of sanction. Objectivity, in this context, is closely tied to the explicit command and the authority issuing it.
- Methodological Differences: Austin's methodological approach was more analytical and focused on understanding the nature of law as a system of commands. His emphasis was on describing and analyzing legal rules as they exist, and he did not delve deeply into historical contexts or the interpretation of past legal practices.
Leopold von Ranke:
- Field: Ranke was a historian, often considered the founder of modern source-based history.
- Conception of Objectivity: Ranke's conception of objectivity in history was tied to the critical analysis of primary sources. He believed in presenting historical events as they actually occurred, free from the biases of the historian. Objectivity, for Ranke, involved a rigorous and systematic examination of historical documents to extract factual information.
- Methodological Differences: Ranke's methodological approach was more historical and involved a careful examination of original sources. His emphasis was on reconstructing the past based on empirical evidence, and he advocated for a disciplined approach to historical research. Unlike Austin, Ranke engaged deeply with historical contexts and was concerned with interpreting the meaning behind historical events.
In summary, the differences in their conceptions of objectivity arise from the specific methodologies and concerns of their respective fields. Austin's objectivity is tied to the analysis of legal commands and rules, while Ranke's objectivity is rooted in the critical analysis of historical sources and the reconstruction of past events. The nature of their disciplines and the questions they sought to answer shaped their approaches to objectivity.
