CO SCI 136 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Definite Description, Snapple, Intersubjectivity
Assignment 1: Germany’s War Past: Sources, Facts, Motives, Causes
and Identities
1) Which problems does Lorenz point out in the historical analysis of (a) sources and facts,
(b) motives of historical actors, and (c) causes of historical events and developments?
a. sources and facts
1st part:
- historians as authors of secondary literature may use their imagination instead of real facts
and quotations, negatively influences work of historians who use these writings as sources of
own work
- deception like that cannot always be unmasked, as there are not always sources with which
the original one could be compared with
- example of Rauschning’s talks with Hitler: had been using quotations from other people’s
publications and therefore used specific parts of sources just to fit his own narrative
=> steps to figure out if a source is really authentic or not
1. recreate its context
2. compare and contrast it with other sources from the same historical context
3. closely examine the paper on which the source as written
- interpretation of source cannot authoritatively be disproven by interpretation of another
source
=> interpretation lives as long as defender of it lives which leads to never-ending discussion
about interpretation of sources
- historians themselves are authorities within history, rule over sources and facts by making
interpretations of them
=> different interpretations by different historians are based on different ideological or
political backgrounds
- there is no single and definite description of the past, no outstanding and safely proven fact
=> as there is no single representation of the past, any representation of it is theoretically
possible
- historical interpretations is nevertheless completely free and without any borders but
limited to information given in sources
b. motives of historical actors
2nd part:
- task of historian according to Collingwood: understanding actions of historical figures on
basis of their aims and motives
=> historical events are to be understand from the outside (observable events that took
place) to the inside (individual motives and feelings behind it)
=> nevertheless ignored appearing problems of reliability and intersubjectivity
=> many different possible interpretations of one intention
3rd part:
- discussion about Germany’s role in outbreak of First World War as example of problem
with intentional explanations
=> discussion is known as Fischer controversy: question if Germany had accidentally and
passively drawn into defensive war or actually actively started it and if Imperial Chancellor
Hollweg had tried to keep peace or actually promoted war
- Fischer’s opinion: Germany had prepared actively for war, with aim of subordinating half of
Europe, which can be seen at Hollweg writing the September memorandum, plan for
territorial expansion of Imperial Germany
=> different explanations of historians about Hollweg’s motives for writing the
memorandum:
1) Fischer: Hollweg wanted to continue war until already mentioned political aim had been
achieved
2) Ritter: Fischer had misunderstood memorandum by ignoring its actual context, victory for
Germany had seemed to be attainable during that time
=> Hollweg wanted to lighten pressure of extreme nationalists who promoted war
=> Hollweg felt responsible for global catastrophe caused by war and therefore wanted to
give it a more positive aim
3) Zechlin: Germany stood under enormous pressure as England had cut off its sea links and
therefore had to defend freedom of its economy
=> example shows that intentional explanations depend to large extent on different contexts
that historians consider to be most relevant
=> three basic problems are connected historical intentional explanations
4th part:
1. problem of the demonstrability of intentions:
- belief in existence of certain intention always remains hypothetical and can never be fully
proven by valid facts
- there is no standard relationship between inside and outside of historical event which
historian could stick to during his interpretation
=> again completely up to the historian to decide which context is relevant and which not
- question whether it is even possible at all to get knowledge about someone’s inside world
1) Berkeley’s theory of solipsism: private world is completely separated from outside world
and cannot be reached from it
=> argument against this impossibility: inner feelings are usually expressed through
collective language community which human individual belongs to
=> common rules therefore exist to interpret someone’s inner feelings, which of course has
not always to work correctly
2) collective theory of solipsism: claims about motives of other people can only be made
within separated linguistic and cultural contexts
=> counterargument: intercultural communication is still and always possible
5th part:
2. problem of overdetermination
- example of Hitler and his connection to the Endlösung, genocide at the Jews
- Hitler’s motives should not all be interpreted literally, because in many cases he just could
have told the people what they liked to hear
=> no evident relationship between his actions and intentions
- impression appeared that Hitler directed all his actions towards his biggest aim of the final
solution to the Jewish problem
Document Summary
Historians as authors of secondary literature may use their imagination instead of real facts and quotations, negatively influences work of historians who use these writings as sources of own work. Deception like that cannot always be unmasked, as there are not always sources with which the original one could be compared with. Example of rauschning"s talks with hitler: had been using quotations from other people"s publications and therefore used specific parts of sources just to fit his own narrative. => steps to figure out if a source is really authentic or not: recreate its context, compare and contrast it with other sources from the same historical context, closely examine the paper on which the source as written. Interpretation of source cannot authoritatively be disproven by interpretation of another source. => interpretation lives as long as defender of it lives which leads to never-ending discussion about interpretation of sources.
