Historical methodology, as I see it, is a product of common sense applied to circumstances.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Courses on historical methodology are not worth the time that they take up. I shall never give one myself, and I have observed that many of my colleagues who do give such courses refrain from exemplifying their methods by writing anything.
History is a tool used by politicians to justify their intentions.
The idea that anybody might be allowed to use their common sense when clearly no harm is being done is part of history now.
I've always been intrigued by the way history works, the way we decide what is mentioned.
We live in an era with no historical precedents. History is no longer useful as a tool in helping us understand current changes.
History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
I'm basically an optimist because I do think there's this historical modernisation process, and by and large it's been very beneficial to people. But there are blips. History doesn't proceed in a linear way.
The way you 'take history' is also a way of 'making history.'
History creates comprehensibility primarily by arranging facts meaningfully and only in a very limited sense by establishing strict causal connections.
The psychoanalytic method is essentially a historical method.